[U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@free.fr>]

Le 22/11/2010 16:02, Premi, Sanjeev a ?crit :
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud at free.fr]
>> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:02 PM
>> To: Premi, Sanjeev
>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk; u-boot at lists.denx.de
>> Subject: Re: Build failures with older toolchain
>>
>> Le 22/11/2010 14:50, Premi, Sanjeev a ?crit :
>>> Tried the same stuff for overo and no issues!
>>>
>>> Since there linker scripts are same between omap3_evm, omap3_beagle
>>> and omap3_overo, only difference could have been board
>> specific code.
>>>
>>> I was hoping to find some code that might be offending the linker;
>>> unable to find by inspection, I reduced the default configuration
>>> for the evm to as low as I could - still see:
>>>
>>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: section .bss [800fe358 ->
>> 800fee1b] overlaps section .rel.dyn [800fe358 ->   8010076f]
>>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: u-boot: section .bss vma
>> 0x800fe358 overlaps previous sections
>>>
>>> I am still not sure why the start of .bss and .rel.dyn for
>> omap3_evm start at same address
>>
>> That is because they are voluntarily overlapped. This looks like the
>> patch I recently did, which in essence does overlap BSS (which is not
>> used before relocation) and relocation tables (which are not
>> used after
>> relocation) so that the FLASH and RAM footprint remain minimal.
>
> [sp] Are you referring to this patch?
>       http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commitdiff;h=aaeb0a890a050b58be87fa2b165eec5fa947dc86
>
>       I see the change for arm926ejs/u-boot.lds and armv7/u-boot.lds
>       to be similar.
>
>       Your commit mentions about the new ld vs. old; I had seen this
>       earlier as well. It was the reason for me to try CodeSourcery
>       Lite 2010-q1 but there I get a different error - mentioned in my
>       first post.
>
>       Which toolchain version are you using?

I usually try the 2009q3 Code Sourcery and the ELDK 4.2 toolchains.

Can you compare the ld invocation command lines for a failure case and a 
success case? The difference could be in the linker options.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.