[U-Boot] OMAP3: EVM: Linker errors across tool chain versions

[Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@googlemail.com>]

On 12.12.2010 11:08, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
>
> Le 12/12/2010 09:25, Dirk Behme a ?crit :
>>
>> What's the status of the linker errors across tool chain versions seen
>> by building the 'omap3_evm' board?
>>
>> This was already discussed in the threads [1] and [2], but it seems to
>> me that there was no acceptable fix, yet?
>>
>> E.g. with CodeSourcery's tool chain 2009q1-203 I get
>>
>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: section .bss [8003f5e0 -> 8007e33f] overlaps
>> section .rel.dyn [8003f5e0 -> 80044e6f]
>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: section .dynsym [80044e70 -> 80044f0f]
>> overlaps section .bss [8003f5e0 -> 8007e33f]
>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: u-boot: section .bss vma 0x8003f5e0 overlaps
>> previous sections
>>
>> What we learned from [2] is that using [3] fixes the build (at least
>> for
>> me with the tool chain mentioned above). I.e. converting
>> omap3_evm_version from u8 to int
>>
>> -static u8 omap3_evm_version;
>> +static int omap3_evm_version;
>>
>> makes the issue disappear.
>>
>> But if I understood the discussion correctly, this is no acceptable fix
>> and can be used only as debug help (?).
>>
>> Any further hints?
>
> Three comments at least:
>
> 1. I personally would agree with the change to int, but since Wolfgang
> considers it a workaround to the linker issue, I won't accept it either.
>
> 2. IIRC, the linker emits a warning, not an error. We can live some
> time with a warning if it is documented and it is being worked on.

With 2009q1-203 it's an error and 'omap3_evm'  isn't built:

arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: section .bss [8003f5e0 -> 8007e33f] 
overlaps section .rel.dyn [8003f5e0 -> 80044e6f] 
 

arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: section .dynsym [80044e70 -> 80044f0f] 
overlaps section .bss [8003f5e0 -> 8007e33f] 
 

arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: u-boot: section .bss vma 0x8003f5e0 
overlaps previous sections
make: *** [u-boot] Error 1 

size: './u-boot': No such file

Thanks

Dirk

> 3. I did offer to try and find a minimal test case (one .c file, one
> .lds file, one simple command line) to cause the warning and submit it
> to the binutils list, but haven't had time so far.
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Dirk
>
> Amicalement,