From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:57:02 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme In-Reply-To: <1217006928.7972.47.camel@duo> References: <20080724185734.6d79c419@hskinnemo-gx745.norway.atmel.com> <20080725042816.4F8B1248A5@gemini.denx.de> <20080725111041.4c0b925a@siona.local> <1216986958.17719.13.camel@duo> <20080725141909.4a635af0@siona.local> <1216996436.7972.14.camel@duo> <20080725172334.13ee6301@siona.local> <1217003489.7972.33.camel@duo> <488A0729.1070306@ge.com> <1217006928.7972.47.camel@duo> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM, kenneth johansson wrote: > I was afraid that what was needed was more or less a complete linker but > it looks like if one generate the dynamic reloc table a much simpler > linker(relocation function) is needed. Still probably a lot more complex > than the GOT and fixup code that is just a loop over a table. We may > need a case also ;-) The GOT relocation works. It works really well. As long as gcc and ld put the correct GOT bits into the GOT table. It seems not all versions of gcc do it in the same way with the same flags. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.