[U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain

Premi, Sanjeev
2010-11-22T15:27:10Z

> From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud at free.fr]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:54 PM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: Build failures with older toolchain
>
> 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=aaeb0a890a050b
> 58be87fa2b165eec5fa947dc86
> >
> > 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.

[sp] Identical :(
Would you want me to share the build logs or the last step?
The generated u-boot.lds is also same. It was my first step.

Then I started looking if there is any "forced" addition on
specific section that may not be going well with linker/
relocation changes - reason for trying a minimal config.

~sanjeev

>
> Amicalement,
> --
> Albert.
>