From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:00:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from p508B7879.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:80.139.120.121]:50003 "EHLO mail.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:00:41 +0000 Received: from fluff.linux-mips.net (fluff.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linux-mips.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2NC0YoM006232; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:00:34 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by fluff.linux-mips.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2NC0Xr4006231; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:00:33 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:00:33 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Kumba , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8 Message-ID: <20040323120033.GA6151@linux-mips.org> References: <404D28B1.4010608@gentoo.org> <20040309023737.GJ16163@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <4058BC76.9020204@gentoo.org> <4058DAE2.8000902@gentoo.org> <4058E89B.3010208@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 4619 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:49:02PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > Essentially all platforms that currently set the address to something > > that's not aligned to a 64kB boundry. I'd like binutils to be fixed > > instead, though -- I'll try to track the problem down and cook a patch > > before 2.15. I think the problem may be considered serious enough the > > release may even be deferred for a few days if necessary (since I believe > > it's quite close). > > After a study of the relevant BFD code, I'm now pretty sure it does its > job right -- the .text section which is placed at a fixed offset by the > linker script only imposes an alignment of 4 and the 64kB alignment is > required by the segment the section is placed in. So BFD does the right > job by lowering the segment's VMA so that the .text section is placed at > the requested offset. > > What's important, segment alignment happens under the assumption a binary > will be used in a paged environment. This is not normally the case with a > MIPS Linux kernel, so I think the right solution is to ask the linker not > to do page aligning using the "-n" option. Here's a patch that should do > that. > > Ralf, OK to apply this? Sure, I don't see any possible drawback from this. Ralf