From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 6B1D5E00860; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 03:37:28 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message Received: from sip2-98.nexcess.net (iwavesystems.com [207.32.180.10]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6E9E004FF for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 03:37:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11078 invoked by uid 108); 14 Jan 2015 06:37:24 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.104?) (124.124.219.229) by sip2-98.nexcess.net with SMTP; 14 Jan 2015 06:37:24 -0500 Message-ID: <54B654F0.2000803@iwavesystems.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:07:20 +0530 From: ansaris User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Otavio Salvador References: <54B649F6.6000302@iwavesystems.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: i.MX6 - u-boot binary size getting changed X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:37:28 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080303020200060301000302" --------------080303020200060301000302 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Thank you for your valuable input. We have posted the same in U-Boot mailing list. Thank You, Regards, Ansari On Wednesday 14 January 2015 04:31 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello Ansari, > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:50 AM, ansaris wrote: > ... >> We would like to know, why the "relocaddr & reloc off "(as highlighted >> above) are different? since the source codes are same and compiled in >> different host PC (64bit & 32bit). >> In addition, we checked the u-boot.imx binary file size. We could see the >> difference in the file size as below >> u-boot.imx(compiled in 32bit host PC) - 313644 bytes >> u-boot.imx(compiled in 64bit host PC) - 318780 bytes > The question makes a lot of sense but it should be targeted to the > U-Boot mailing list. Could you send it there? > --------------080303020200060301000302 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi,

Thank you for your valuable input. We have posted the same in U-Boot mailing list.

Thank You,
Regards,
Ansari

On Wednesday 14 January 2015 04:31 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

Hello Ansari,

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:50 AM, ansaris <ansaris@iwavesystems.com> wrote:
...

We would like to know, why the "relocaddr & reloc off "(as highlighted
above) are different?  since the source codes are same and compiled in
different host PC (64bit & 32bit).
In addition, we checked the u-boot.imx binary file size.  We could see the
difference in the file size as below
u-boot.imx(compiled in 32bit host PC) - 313644 bytes
u-boot.imx(compiled in 64bit host PC) - 318780 bytes

The question makes a lot of sense but it should be targeted to the
U-Boot mailing list. Could you send it there?

--------------080303020200060301000302--