Hi Dan, On 17 March 2017 at 12:58, Dan Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > Simon > > On 03/17/2017 01:46 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> On 17 March 2017 at 12:33, Dan Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Simon >>> >>> On 03/17/2017 01:24 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> +ML >>>> >>>> Hi Dan, >>>> >>>> On 17 March 2017 at 12:16, Dan Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Simon >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to drop you a note to see if you have any advice on how to fix >>>>> this issue. >>>>> >>>>> In the attached .config file we enable >>>>> >>>>> CONFIG_SPL_SYS_MALLOC_SIMPLE and CONFIG_SPL_DFU_SUPPORT which we need >>>>> CONFIG_SPL_DFU_RAM >>>>> >>>>> When doing this we find that there is a build error >>>>> >>>>> common/built-in.o: In function `xrealloc': >>>>> common/cli_hush.c:3349: undefined reference to `realloc_simple' >>>>> common/built-in.o: In function `done_word': >>>>> common/cli_hush.c:2494: undefined reference to `realloc_simple' >>>>> cli_hush.c:2499: undefined reference to `realloc_simple' >>>>> common/built-in.o: In function `b_check_space': >>>>> common/cli_hush.c:876: undefined reference to `realloc_simple' >>>>> make[1]: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 1 >>>>> make: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 2 >>>>> >>>>> In digging into this I am finding that realloc_simple is not defined >>>>> anywhere in uboot. malloc_simple.c seems >>>>> to be missing the implementation. >>>>> >>>>> I am looking to see if you have a patch that fixes this issue or if you >>>>> can guide us to a resolution. >>>>> >>>>> Right now our only work around is to disable the HUSH_PARSER or turn off >>>>> the MALLOC simple. Which according to >>>>> Lokesh, CC'd, is needed for DM support. >>>> So SPL is using hush? Is there a description somewhere of what it does >>>> with that? >>> HUSH_PARSER was added to the TI config in commit adad96e60 configs: Re-sync >>> HUSH options. >>> >>> HUSH calls realloc in the builtin functions. I am not sure what SPL would >>> do with the HUSH. >>> >>>> If you have enough space for hush I wonder whether you can just use >>>> full malloc() in SPL? You could implement realloc_simple() by just >>>> calling malloc_simple() and copying the old data over, but it is >>>> inefficient. >>> We could work around it but the undef reference will still exist for other >>> code that would need realloc. >> Right, but the point of simple malloc() is to be simple, and realloc() >> is assumed not to be needed until you have a proper malloc(). > > By proper malloc you mean the dlmalloc code? > > If thats true then why is realloc even defined in the simple malloc case?
To avoid it trying to use realloc(). Perhaps instead of a link error it should be defined to some sort of error message? Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
