From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:03:11 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme In-Reply-To: References: <20080725042816.4F8B1248A5@gemini.denx.de> <20080725111041.4c0b925a@siona.local> <1216986958.17719.13.camel@duo> <20080725141909.4a635af0@siona.local> <1216996436.7972.14.camel@duo> <20080725172334.13ee6301@siona.local> <1217003489.7972.33.camel@duo> <488A0729.1070306@ge.com> <1217006928.7972.47.camel@duo> Message-ID: <20080726140311.GE26611@game.jcrosoft.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 01:57 Sat 26 Jul , Grant Likely wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM, kenneth johansson wrote: > > I was afraid that what was needed was more or less a complete linker but > > it looks like if one generate the dynamic reloc table a much simpler > > linker(relocation function) is needed. Still probably a lot more complex > > than the GOT and fixup code that is just a loop over a table. We may > > need a case also ;-) > > The GOT relocation works. It works really well. As long as gcc and > ld put the correct GOT bits into the GOT table. It seems not all > versions of gcc do it in the same way with the same flags. Why not set the code depending on the GCC version? Best Regards, J.