From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: kenneth johansson <kenneth@southpole.se>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:00:04 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Fixup entries
In-Reply-To: <005a01c89a5d$8e9c67b0$abd53710$@Tjernlund@transmode.se>
References: <1207733537.6954.32.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1207740219.5826.71.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se>
	<1207752413.6954.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<005a01c89a5d$8e9c67b0$abd53710$@Tjernlund@transmode.se>
Message-ID: <1207782004.8774.6.camel@duo>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 18:19 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kenneth Johansson [mailto:kenneth at southpole.se]
> > Wonder if there is something else in u-boot that use function pointers
> > and work by accident due to the fact that the old address in flash is
> > still valid.
> 
> Oh yes, there are a few such pointers. And the conversion to using fixups instead
> is a bit lazy. Several manual relocations has only been nullified by setting 
> gd->reloc_off=0 instead of #ifdef:ing out the relevant code. Feel
> free to send patches :)
> 
>     Jocke
> 

If by lazy you mean less error prone and obviously simpler :). clearly
using -mrelocatable is the smarter thing to do. 

I had this misconception that the GOT was all that was needed for
relocation.
Could not find any useful information on what rules apply to gcc and
binutils for handling stuff in this fixup section. 

Anybody have any information on this?