From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miao Qingjun Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:02:31 +0800 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for mpc82xx crashed Message-ID: <45FE7BD7.2000506@centecnetworks.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi, I encountered a big problem that u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for mpc82xx crashed. But if I build it using gcc-3.4.6 based cross tools, u-boot on my board boots correctly. u-boot built by eldk 4.1 (gcc-4.0) failed, nothing occures on serial port. Somebody sufered the same problem? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Denk Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:28:38 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for mpc82xx crashed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:02:31 +0800." <45FE7BD7.2000506@centecnetworks.com> Message-ID: <20070319122838.1354C35260B@atlas.denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de In message <45FE7BD7.2000506@centecnetworks.com> you wrote: > > I encountered a big problem that u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for > mpc82xx crashed. U-Boot 1.1.4 is from 2005, i. e. very old compared to gcc 4.x compilers. You must not expect that your ancient code is still usable with recent tools. > Somebody sufered the same problem? Update your code. Guess why ELDK 4.1 has U-Boot 1.2.0 included? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de I don't see any direct evidence ... but, then, my crystal ball is in dire need of an ectoplasmic upgrade. :-) -- Howard Smith From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miao Qingjun Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:37:17 +0800 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for mpc82xx crashed In-Reply-To: <20070319122838.1354C35260B@atlas.denx.de> References: <20070319122838.1354C35260B@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <45FE83FD.7080706@centecnetworks.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20070319/e4c78320/attachment.htm From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Denk Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:10:19 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for mpc82xx crashed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:37:17 +0800." <45FE83FD.7080706@centecnetworks.com> Message-ID: <20070319131019.DC1A0353C60@atlas.denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de In message <45FE83FD.7080706@centecnetworks.com> you wrote: > --===============1427169448== > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > DON'T POST HTML HERE!!!! > Actually I first build u-boot-1.1.4 using eldk 4.0, it also failed > booting.
> And eldk 4.0 delivered with u-boot 1.1.4
The version of U-Boot that has been shipped with ELDK 4.0 is 1.1.4 indeed, but it has been tested and is working fine on a couple of MPC82xx systems we have here. > 
I encountered a big problem that u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for
> mpc82xx crashed.

So this must be a problem in your own board configuration.

I repeat my recommendation to use current code (top of tree from  git
repository).

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office:  Kirchenstr. 5,       D-82194 Groebenzell,            Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Above all else -- sky.

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerry Van Baren 
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:47:46 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for mpc82xx
 crashed
In-Reply-To: <45FE7BD7.2000506@centecnetworks.com>
References: <45FE7BD7.2000506@centecnetworks.com>
Message-ID: <45FE9482.8030008@smiths-aerospace.com>
List-Id: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Miao Qingjun wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I encountered a big problem that u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for
> mpc82xx crashed.
> 
> But if I build it using gcc-3.4.6 based cross tools, u-boot on my board
> boots correctly.
> 
> u-boot built by eldk 4.1 (gcc-4.0) failed, nothing occures on serial
> port.
> 
> Somebody sufered the same problem?

This is often a missing "volatile" qualifier on shared variable
(particularly hardware registers) references.  Newer compiler versions
optimize more aggressively, making missing "volatile"s visible.

If you use -O0 (no optimization) does it fix the problem?  If it does,
it most likely is an optimization/volatile issue.  The hard part is to
figure out where.  Device handling and board-specific code is the place
to start.

Best regards,
gvb

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Miao Qingjun 
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:19:15 +0800
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for mpc82xx
 crashed
In-Reply-To: <45FE9482.8030008@smiths-aerospace.com>
References: <45FE7BD7.2000506@centecnetworks.com>
	<45FE9482.8030008@smiths-aerospace.com>
Message-ID: <45FF44A3.4010705@centecnetworks.com>
List-Id: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Thanks very much.

I tried it using "-O0" and it's OK.
I think u-boot 1.1.4 is not gcc 4.0 friendly.
And I will try u-boot 1.2.0 recommended by Wolfgang Denk.


Jerry Van Baren ??:
> Miao Qingjun wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I encountered a big problem that u-boot 1.1.4 compiled by eldk 4.1 for
>> mpc82xx crashed.
>>
>> But if I build it using gcc-3.4.6 based cross tools, u-boot on my board
>> boots correctly.
>>
>> u-boot built by eldk 4.1 (gcc-4.0) failed, nothing occures on serial
>> port.
>>
>> Somebody sufered the same problem?
>>     
>
> This is often a missing "volatile" qualifier on shared variable
> (particularly hardware registers) references.  Newer compiler versions
> optimize more aggressively, making missing "volatile"s visible.
>
> If you use -O0 (no optimization) does it fix the problem?  If it does,
> it most likely is an optimization/volatile issue.  The hard part is to
> figure out where.  Device handling and board-specific code is the place
> to start.
>
> Best regards,
> gvb
>
>
>