Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] m68k: fix broken buildman m68k

Hello Angelo, Am 12.04.2016 um 00:30 schrieb Angelo Dureghello: fix 19/48 broken board compilations, due to a now too smal 16-bit relative jump Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello --- arch/m68k/cpu/mcf523x/start.S | 8 ++-- arch/m68k/cpu/mcf52x2/start.S | 8 ++--

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] m68k: fix broken buildman m68k

On 04/12/2016 11:41 PM, Angelo Dureghello wrote: > Hi, > > > On 12/04/2016 00:52, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 04/12/2016 12:30 AM, Angelo Dureghello wrote: >>> fix 19/48 broken board compilations, due to a now too smal 16-bit >>> relative jump >> >> Won't it make sense to tweak the linker script to

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] m68k: fix broken buildman m68k

Hi, On 12/04/2016 00:52, Marek Vasut wrote: On 04/12/2016 12:30 AM, Angelo Dureghello wrote: fix 19/48 broken board compilations, due to a now too smal 16-bit relative jump Won't it make sense to tweak the linker script to put those functions closer together instead ? tried hardly with

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] m68k: fix broken buildman m68k

Hi, On 12/04/2016 00:52, Marek Vasut wrote: On 04/12/2016 12:30 AM, Angelo Dureghello wrote: fix 19/48 broken board compilations, due to a now too smal 16-bit relative jump Won't it make sense to tweak the linker script to put those functions closer together instead ? Sure, good idea.

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] m68k: fix broken buildman m68k

On 04/12/2016 12:30 AM, Angelo Dureghello wrote: > fix 19/48 broken board compilations, due to a now too smal 16-bit > relative jump Won't it make sense to tweak the linker script to put those functions closer together instead ? > Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello > --- >

[U-Boot] [PATCH] m68k: fix broken buildman m68k

fix 19/48 broken board compilations, due to a now too smal 16-bit relative jump Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello --- arch/m68k/cpu/mcf523x/start.S | 8 ++-- arch/m68k/cpu/mcf52x2/start.S | 8 ++-- arch/m68k/cpu/mcf532x/start.S | 8 ++--