Dear Joakim Tjernlund, Dear Albert ARIBAUD, Am 30.11.2010 10:41, schrieb Joakim Tjernlund: > Albert ARIBAUD <[email protected]> wrote on 2010/11/30 10:02:45: >> >> Le 30/11/2010 09:47, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit : >>>> >>>> Le 30/11/2010 08:06, Andreas Bießmann a écrit : >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann<[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> + cmp r1, #0 /* symbol == NULL ? */ >>>>> + beq fixnext >>>> >>>> Nak. Don't hide a null pointer. NULL pointers are *not* relocated, since >>>> they are a constant. If a NULL ends up in relocation tables, that is >>>> because of a corruption *or* because it was to be relocated, and should >>>> thus never be ignored. >>> >>> Depends, if the same routine is used for relocating fixups you need >>> this test. Undefined weaks will generate a NULL fixup entry. >> >> Understood. > > note that I don't know how this routine is used so if just > relocates the GOT you don't need to test for NULL. > >> >> Weren't there an effort to not use weak symbols any more? > > ehh, not what I am aware of. Just that we should not use(ATM) > undefined weaks.
Ok, I did forget to investigate that as mentioned in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/88024/focus=88324 Here are the results: Currently arm920/at91 devices have one undefined weak symbol in .dynsym: ---8<--- Symbol table '.dynsym' contains 11 entries: Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name 0: 00000000 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND <corrupt> 1: 10000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 1 <corrupt> 2: 10028a28 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 6 <corrupt> 3: 10029ff8 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 9 <corrupt> 4: 100299f4 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS <corrupt> 5: 00000000 0 NOTYPE WEAK DEFAULT UND <corrupt> 6: 10029ff8 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS <corrupt> 7: 10029ff8 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 11 <corrupt> 8: 1002edf0 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 10 <corrupt> 9: 100701c0 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 11 <corrupt> 10: 1002edf0 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 9 <corrupt> --->8--- ---8<--- Hex dump of section '.dynsym': 0x1002edf0 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 0x1002ee00 00000000 00000010 00000000 03000100 ................ 0x1002ee10 00000000 288a0210 00000000 03000600 ....(........... 0x1002ee20 25000000 f89f0210 00000000 10000900 %............... 0x1002ee30 01000000 f4990210 00000000 1000f1ff ................ 0x1002ee40 5e000000 00000000 00000000 20000000 ^........... ... 0x1002ee50 14000000 f89f0210 00000000 1000f1ff ................ 0x1002ee60 52000000 f89f0210 00000000 10000b00 R............... 0x1002ee70 43000000 f0ed0210 00000000 10000a00 C............... 0x1002ee80 20000000 c0010710 00000000 10000b00 ............... 0x1002ee90 35000000 f0ed0210 00000000 10000900 5............... --->8--- So there are two options here. First is to apply '[PATCH v2 1/2] arm920t/at91/reset.c: fix weak reset_board()' second (and safer) is to apply (maybe modified) '[PATCH RFC 3/3] arm920t: do not relocate NULL pointer'. which one is preferred? Or should we do both? regards Andreas Bießmann _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
