From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:48:26 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme In-Reply-To: <1217058818.7972.77.camel@duo> References: <20080724130105.3EE93248B9@gemini.denx.de> <1216905458.27201.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080724185734.6d79c419@hskinnemo-gx745.norway.atmel.com> <1216922981.27201.66.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1217058818.7972.77.camel@duo> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 3:53 AM, kenneth johansson wrote: > On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 01:48 -0400, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Kenneth Johansson wrote: >> > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:37 -0700, vb wrote: >> >> But as you pointed out, this would work on ppc only (with a 'good' >> >> compiler), and still remains to be proven, I will get to it a bit >> >> later. >> > >> > I have run u-boot with everything compiled with -mrelocatable and normal >> > relocation fixup code removed so I know it works fine. So consider it >> > proven. But since it apparently is a problem in some situation the best >> > is probably to make it a configuration option. >> >> Can you test against various versions of gcc? That is where I ran into trouble. > > Well If you have a specific version you know is not working I could test > that. gcc 4.0 worked for me. Anything newer or older seemed to behave differently. Looking at the size of the .got and .fixup sections seems to be a good indication of if things are being placed correctly. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.