From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:44:31 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 2/3] arm: make _end compiler-generated
In-Reply-To: <1490671043.1695364.1391083743796.JavaMail.zimbra@advansee.com>
References: <1389171424-14978-3-git-send-email-albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
	<1391076167-14306-1-git-send-email-albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
	<1391076167-14306-2-git-send-email-albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
	<1490671043.1695364.1391083743796.JavaMail.zimbra@advansee.com>
Message-ID: <20140213114431.5497fdc8@lilith>
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

Hi Beno?t,

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:09:03 +0100 (CET), Beno?t Th?baudeau
<benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com> wrote:

> Hi Albert,
> 
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:02:46 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > This prevents references to _end from generating absolute
> > relocation records.
> > 
> > This change is binary invariant for ARM targets.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes in v5:
> > - Rebase onto u-boot-arm/master
> > 
> > Changes in v4: None
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Replace _end in linker scripts with _image_binary_end
> > 
> > Changes in v2: None
> 
> [...]
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds
> > index 4da5d24..f61ef50 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds
> > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds
> > @@ -60,7 +60,12 @@ SECTIONS
> >  		*(.__rel_dyn_end)
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	_end = .;
> > +	.end :
> > +	{
> > +		*(.__end)
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	_image_binary_end = .;
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Deprecated: this MMU section is used by pxa at present but
> > @@ -91,7 +96,9 @@ SECTIONS
> >  		KEEP(*(.__bss_end));
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	.dynsym _end : { *(.dynsym) }
> > +	.dynsym _image_binary_end : { *(.dynsym) }
> > +	.hash : { *(.hash) }
> > +	.got.plt : { *(.got.plt) }
> 
> Are the two additions above intentional? These lines were present in the context
> in v4, but not as an addition. They are also unrelated to the topic of this
> patch.

That's a mistake of mine; they should not have been added back. Thanks
for spotting this, v6 under test right now.

> Best regards,
> Beno?t

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.