On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: >> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> > > > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> > > > > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> > > > > > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi! >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC- >> > > > > > > [email protected]> you wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Indeed. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential >> > > > > > > > > > > solution, at least it >> > > > > > > > > > > worked for me: >> > > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both >> > > > > > > > > > .data.rel.ro and >> > > > > > > > > > data.rel.ro.local should be added? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I can confirm: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto >> > > > > > > > > 1.5.x / ELDK >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 5.5.x]. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] >> > > > > > > > > makes the >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > problem go away. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK >> > > > > > > > > 5.7] makes >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the problem go away. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following >> > > > > > > > > patch >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) >> > > > > > > > > board - guess >> > > > > > > > > this would have to be applied to all .lds files... >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds >> > > > > > > > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 >> > > > > > > > > 100644 >> > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds >> > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds >> > > > > > > > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > { >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; >> > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got2)) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) >> > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got)) >> > > > > > > > > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); >> > > > > > > > > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .; >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder >> > > > > > > > > which >> > > > > > > > > approach we should take? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel >> > > > > > > > > folks are >> > > > > > > > > doing [1] ? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of >> > > > > > > > time >> > > > > > > > trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually >> > > > > > > > determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the >> > > > > > > > problem. >> > > > > > > > Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the >> > > > > > > > current >> > > > > > > > default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc >> > > > > > > > cross >> > > > > > > > compiler... >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Blacklist patch please, thank you! >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > There is a fix here >> > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html >> > > > > > but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I >> > > > > > erase uboot >> > > > > > after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is >> > > > > > something off still. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? >> > > > > > Using T1040(mpc85xx family) >> > > > > >> > > > > Here is a better URL: >> > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/ >> > > > > >> > > > > From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 >> > > > > has the error) >> > > > > and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c). >> > > > > >> > > > > Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be >> > > > > the >> > > > > correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry? >> > > > >> > > > After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup >> > > > entry) >> > > > The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are >> > > > it, >> > > > throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size >> > > >> > > Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field >> > > toolchains? >> > > >> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk >> > > index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk >> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk >> > > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 >> > > LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections >> > > LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt >> > > PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ >> > > --fdata-sections -mcall-linux >> > > +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,) >> > > >> > > PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 >> > > PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux >> > > >> > >> > In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my small compile >> > tests supports. >> > In addition, this works for me now: >> > => printenv tftpflash >> > tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr +$filesize >> > && erase $ubootaddr +$filesize && >> > cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr +$filesize && >> > cmp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr >> > $filesize >> > >> > >> > => run tftpflash >> > Using FM1@DTSEC1 device >> > TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13 >> > Filename 'u-boot.bin'. >> > Load address: 0x1000000 >> > Loading: ###################################################### >> > 7.4 MiB/s >> > done >> > Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex) >> > ...... done >> > Un-Protected 6 sectors >> > >> > ...... done >> > Erased 6 sectors >> > Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done >> > ...... done >> > Protected 6 sectors >> > Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same >> >> OK. Do you have some of the broken older toolchains as well? I think >> this will at least correct 4.9 and maybe 4.8, but older toolchains don't >> have that option (but if there's another option for making older still >> toolchains work, we can do that too on the other side of the cc-option). > > I had gcc 4.8.4(before I upgraded) and it was broken. 4.8.2 is also broken. > > I don't think this bug is present on older(<4.8) gcc's, the author to the > patch > claims that bug is not present in gcc 4.7.3 > > My old gcc 4.5.3 works fine also
My 4.6.3 has the issue (but it shows up in a different place than with my 4.8.3). Andy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
