From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kenneth johansson Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:55:58 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme In-Reply-To: <20080725111041.4c0b925a@siona.local> References: <20080724185734.6d79c419@hskinnemo-gx745.norway.atmel.com> <20080725042816.4F8B1248A5@gemini.denx.de> <20080725111041.4c0b925a@siona.local> Message-ID: <1216986958.17719.13.camel@duo> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:10 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:28:16 +0200 > Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > In message <20080724185734.6d79c419@hskinnemo-gx745.norway.atmel.com> you wrote: > > > We could build u-boot as a shared library I guess, but that feels a bit > > > weird... > > > > Shared? Shared by what? > > An ELF shared library has the dynamic relocations we need. So if we > build u-boot as an .so file, it should work in theory on most > architectures. > > Haavard > well the elf binary of u-boot obviously has everything we need regardless of what options it was compiled with. If we had a full linker at runtime we could just do a relink to whatever address we wanted. It sounds a bit easier to just loop over a list of pointers and change the values than to implement a complete linker but maybe that is just me.