Luigi 'Comio' Mantellini wrote:
Hi Bartlomiej,
thank you for the answers. See my comments below.
On gio, 2008-04-03 at 11:31 +0200, Bartlomiej Sieka wrote:
Hi Luigi,
You wrote:
On gio, 2008-03-27 at 12:13 +0100, L
- I'm interested to calculate and store from U-boot code but the
fit_image_set_hashes is compiled only when the USE_HOSTCC symbol is defined. Why? Is there a particular reason?
There's no need for the function that you mention in current U-Boot code, that's the reason why it's under USE_HOSTCC. If you're planning on adding code to U-Boot that will use fit_image_set_hashes(), then just remove the USE_HOSTCC #define's from around this function.
I think that a lot of useful functions (ifdef-ed by USE_HOSTCC) should be available also in u-boot code, anyway the linker will drop the unused functions.
I don't think the linker will do this in case of U-Boot:
With the following patch:
diff --git a/common/image.c b/common/image.c index f04826a..850a9e4 100644 --- a/common/image.c +++ b/common/image.c @@ -1950,7 +1950,6 @@ static int calculate_hash (const void *data, int data_len, return 0; }
-#ifdef USE_HOSTCC /**
- fit_set_hashes - process FIT component image nodes and calculate hashes
- @fit: pointer to the FIT format image header
@@ -2119,7 +2118,6 @@ int fit_image_hash_set_value (void *fit, int noffset, uint
return 0; } -#endif /* USE_HOSTCC */
/**
- fit_image_check_hashes - verify data intergity
I see:
$ ${CROSS_COMPILE}nm -S common/image.o | grep fit_image_set_hashes 0000155c 000001f4 T fit_image_set_hashes $ ${CROSS_COMPILE}nm -S common/libcommon.a | grep fit_image_set_hashes 0000155c 000001f4 T fit_image_set_hashes $ ${CROSS_COMPILE}nm -S u-boot | grep fit_image_set_hashes fffb1924 000001f4 T fit_image_set_hashes
There's also size increase with the patch applied: text data bss dec hex filename 284615 15556 357120 657291 a078b ./u-boot
text data bss dec hex filename285875 15572 357120 658567 a0c87 u-boot
Before to make this test, you should strip the elf-file in order to omit the non-used code. Alternatively you should check the size of the u-boot.bin file (that is striped by definition).
"objcopy -O binary" which is used to create u-boot.bin from u-boot doesn't remove unused functions -- code for fit_image_set_hashes (and other functions removed from under #ifdef USE_HOSTCC by the patch) is present in u-boot.bin.
If you add enough of such dead code, you'll see the increase in size of u-boot.bin, or run into linking problems -- depending on the particular linker script used for the target.
Regards, Bartlomiej