From: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] Debugging (was: ARM : Removing unwind dummy functions)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:56:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121018235627.GZ27770@bill-the-cat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121019010241.59a52963@lilith>
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:02:41AM +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Gabriel,
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:14:14 +0200, Gabriel Huau
> <contact@huau-gabriel.fr> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to know if it's really necessary to keep the dummy
> > functions in arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.c.
> >
> > These function should not be happen in our case (that why the body is
> > empty).
> >
> > They have been introduced due to problems with some toolchains that was
> > referencing these functions. But we can avoid this hack by adding the
> > option '-fno-unwind-tables' at the compilation time no ? (correct me if
> > I'm wrong).
>
> We can do this, but then we lose some potentially helpful debug info.
> OTOH, this debug info is not useful in production.
>
> Which leads to a more general question: what about options for
> debugging less basic than #define'ing DEBUG ? (my favorite, and one
> a few people share I believe, is the ability to build an U-Boot that can
> be loaded and run from RAM, i.e. without the CPU critical inits, and
> possibly also without relocation. These features could be made
> available through debug options such as DEBUG_SKIP_CRITICAL_INIT or
> DEBUG_SKIP_RELOCATION).
I don't like these. Disabling relocation is on the "why?" side for me.
Any modern debugger has the ability to adjust symbol offsets and U-Boot
will tell you (bdinfo or with the debug print) what you need. You can
even get at it via the debugger prior to relocation. In the case where
you don't have a JTAG header, it's not hard to run U-Boot from RAM from
U-Boot (or whatever you can run it from), if you can't get real boot-up
loading from something other than flash.
> Here we could have DEBUG_ARM_UNWIND_SUPPORT: if undefined, option
> -fno-unwind-tables is added to compilers which understand it and unwind
> helper functions are not compiled, and if defined, helpers are compiled.
Well, here's something I just poked at. If we switch to
-ffunction-section/-fdata-sections and --gc-sections like other arches
we can just drop this outright. SPL is already discarding it and a
quick test shows I can even not build it.
--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20121018/acf5ea37/attachment.pgp>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-18 23:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-18 20:14 [U-Boot] ARM : Removing unwind dummy functions Gabriel Huau
2012-10-18 23:02 ` [U-Boot] Debugging (was: ARM : Removing unwind dummy functions) Albert ARIBAUD
2012-10-18 23:56 ` Tom Rini [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121018235627.GZ27770@bill-the-cat \
--to=trini@ti.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox