On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 11:15:25PM +0400, Ilya Yanok wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > OK, installed and it's still larger with this change than without and > > it's not garbage collecting and dropping commands if I un-guard the > > nandecc command for example. Tested with omap3_beagle. > > > > Did some testing as well. [snip] > My interpretation: first two builds are equal, that's to be expected as in > mainline U-Boot all command definitions are carefully guarded so remove > undef patch has no effect at all. You said in your testing patched version > produced bigger image... Probably you patched it by hand without commiting > and got "-dirty" difference? (I did so initially ;) )
That would be it, yes :) > Next, when we unguard the command we definitely get bigger image... But the > code is not here: > > $ arm-linux-gnueabi-nm ../out/undef+nandecc/spl/u-boot-spl |grep > do_switch_ecc > $ > > By comparing of two images I've found that the difference comes from > ro-strings (two help strings in U_BOOT_CMD, string in printf, "sw" & "hw"). > It looks like the linker doesn't collect ro-strings referenced from > collected functions... Probably that's a bug but I'm not sure... Yes. What I meant was that not all of the stuff that is guarded today is garbage collected so the resulting image is larger than it must be. And yes, this is a toolchain issue of sorts (not being aggressive enough in collecting unreferenced data). > > Regards, Ilya. > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot -- Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
