Hi Wolfgang, Tom, On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:31:14AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Chris Packham, >> >> In message <1406179627-9496-1-git-send-email-judge.pack...@gmail.com> you >> wrote: >> > u-boot.map is generated automatically by the compiler and more >> > importantly can handle addresses >4GB. >> ... >> > > I think it should be possible to change binary_size_check to use >> > > u-boot.map instead of System.map but would that be OK for all >> > > architectures? >> ... >> > Something like this works for me but maybe there is a way to get nm to >> > handle >> > addresses >4GB. >> ... >> > + map_size=$(shell cat u-boot.map | \ >> > awk '/_image_copy_start/ {start = $$1} /_image_binary_end/ >> > {end = $$1} END {if (start != "" && end != "") print "ibase=16; " >> > toupper(end) " - " toupper(start)}' \ >> > + | sed 's/0X//g' \ >> >> >> Do we _really_ need all of this? >> >> This looks very much like creaping featurism to me...
Do we need it? Maybe not I'd defer that judgement to you. My problem is binary_size_check is on by default and my particular platform (an out of tree ARM board) fails to build because of it. If there was a way of opting out I'd happily use it. > > So it's a safetey check. The various linker script clean-ups we've been > doing have introduced a problem from time to time and binary_check_size > gives a sanity check. This just fixes a corner case in the test. I wouldn't say this is a corner case. Certainly for the ARM target I'm building it is unusual but I know plenty of powerpc boards would hit the same problem becuase they have a jump instruction at the top of their address space. > > -- > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot