On 2010-11-19 07:36:05, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Le 18/11/2010 23:33, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
I see two possible reasons: 1) whay you describe is a new feature in
binutils 2.20; I'm currently using 2.17.50 (with ELDk 4.2); or 2) the
linker does not realize it because it's actually
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-19 09:08:33, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message sebastien.carl...@1e724f1c01c015f817d5e33b57e7134d4468dbcc you
wrote:
It looks like the purpose is to optimally fill a flash sector with
definitions, is this accurate? Why is this needed? Beside the obvious
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-19 12:11:12, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message sebastien.carl...@f67ce90ecc8846695b88fb9ac74f99d56979b90a you
wrote:
The used flash chips are so-called bootom boot sector types; using two
chips in 16 bit config in parallel (to get a 32 bit bus) we see this
flash
Dear Albert,
On 2010-11-19 13:38:00, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Le 19/11/2010 13:33, Sebastien Carlier a écrit :
Is it not possible to tell the linker to place a made-up 32 kB symbol
within the text section at address 0x40008000? I am not familiar enough
with ld to tell whether
Previously with archive libraries fdt.o was compiled and included in
qe.a and then discarded by the linker. With partial linking this
results in unresolved symbols, which this commit fixes.
This commit also cleans up a now-useless conditional in fdt.c.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Carlier
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-18 22:44:48, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Unfortunately I have not been able to reproduce these errors with the
toolchain I am using (gcc 4.4.5 and binutils 2.20.1.20100303, based on
emdebian squeeze packages). Can you please point me to the toolchain
you are using?
Dear Joachim,
On 2010-11-17 11:38:54, Joachim Rahn wrote:
Hi all,
I've ported u-boot to our ARM board based on at91sam9263.
When I try to use the LED functions I have problems getting
strong symbols overriden by weak ones.
I'm just stumbling upon the archive entries
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-15 11:54:07, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
I notice that the patch affects the size of the resulting U-Boot
images.
The size increase you noted seems to completely go away when adding
--gc-sections to LDFLAGS, but this option apparently brings its own
issues when the linker
Dear Mike,
On 2010-11-17 13:06:49, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 08:30:56 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
On 2010-11-15 11:54:07, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
I notice that the patch affects the size of the resulting U-Boot
images.
The size increase you noted seems
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-15 08:51:29, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 20101110080708.ga8...@safe.home.local you wrote:
Good suggestion, done in v3:
I have to admit that I lost a bit of overview of the current state of
this work. My understanding is that you are preparing a new
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-15 11:54:07, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
I notice that the patch affects the size of the resulting U-Boot
images.
For example:
Configuring for MiniFAP - Board: TQM5200, Options: MINIFAP
textdata bss dec hex filename
358144 35208 303248 696600
? It fixed this problem for me.
--
Sebastien
From f4007bb3d05768bbe5c0903f856809618a89e921 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sebastien Carlier sebastien.carl...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:41:44 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm920t: add .plt and .rel.plt to the linker script
Signed-off
On 2010-11-15 11:54:07, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
I notice that the patch affects the size of the resulting U-Boot
images.
For example:
Configuring for MiniFAP - Board: TQM5200, Options: MINIFAP
textdata bss dec hex filename
358144 35208 303248 696600 aa118
Dear Mike,
On 2010-11-10 01:57:30, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday, November 08, 2010 17:04:32 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
This commit changes all Makefiles to use partial linking (ld -r) instead of
creating library archives, which forces all symbols to participate in
linking, allowing non
On 2010-11-10 03:55:21, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 03:07:08 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
On 2010-11-10 01:57:30, Mike Frysinger wrote:
the config.mk looks weird:
+cmd_link_o_target = $(if $(strip $1),\
+ $(LD) -r -o $@ $1
Dear André,
On 2010-11-09 10:15:31, Andre Schwarz wrote:
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:15:31 +0100
From: Andre Schwarz andre.schw...@matrix-vision.de
To: Sebastien Carlier sebastien.carl...@gmail.com
CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de, Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com,
Kim Phillips kim.phill
needed, in particular
in some linker scripts.
This commit reveals board configurations that exclude some module but not all
of its dependencies; for
example, disabling CMD_NET but not CMD_NFS results in undefined symbols at link
time.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Carlier sebastien.carl...@gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Graeme Russ graeme.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Sebastien Carlier
sebastien.carl...@gmail.com wrote:
NOTE: This does not include the actual patch as it is too large for the
mailing list (418 kB).
A link to the matching patch would
to be excluded
when one of its dependencies is disabled.
Regards,
Sebastien Carlier
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
that a configuration is meaningful?
Best regards,
Sebastien Carlier
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
/nfs.o from being compiled and causing undefined symbols.
--
Sebastien Carlier
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
spi_cs_deactivate
spi_cs_is_valid
system_map
--
Sebastien Carlier
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
not beautiful but still
widely used and bullet-proof.
Could you please elaborate? I have looked for things like this in the
code base but I could not find what you are referring to.
Regards,
Sebastien Carlier
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
are involved, but correct
behavior depends on all boards doing the right thing.
Close. I think stop using a library archives and do what Linux does
instead is the way to go.
Partial linking with ld -r ? That does seem like a fairly simple change.
Regards,
Sebastien Carlier
Dear Wolfgang,
On 11/05/2010 01:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message4cd3f58f.8090...@gmail.com you wrote:
It does seem like weak symbols were designed with other uses in mind,
such as C++ class members defined within a class declaration, or to weak
-of-building-library-arch.patch.bz2
I am not posting the patch directly to the list because it is rather large.
Feedback is very welcome!
Best regards,
Sebastien Carlier
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Andreas Bießmann
andreas.de...@googlemail.com wrote:
---8---
__LIBS := $(subst $(obj),,$(LIBBOARD)) $(subst $(obj),,$(LIBS))
---8---
Still, why would the linker pull definitions from libboard.a? Library
archive are only searched by the linker to resolved
entries for undefined weak symbols and crashes when the PLT-related
sections (.plt, .got.plt, and .rel.plt) are discarded...
--
Sebastien Carlier
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Hello all,
I am trying to get the ELF relocation working with the arm920t, and I
have applied the patch recently posted to the list by Andreas
Bießmann.
I found that adding these two sections to the linker script gets rid
of both assert failures:
.plt : { *(.plt) }
.rel.plt : {
29 matches
Mail list logo
