On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund > <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> 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 > >> > > > > > > > <w...@denx.de> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC- > >> > > > > > > c1257d7a.0024d...@transmode.se> 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).
Then we need a different flag there :( Does what Joakim found maybe provide a hint? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot