Hi Mark,
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:29:09 +0200, Mark Marshall mark.marshall@omicron.at wrote:
I've just had a quick look at this in passing, but at least some of these changes seem wrong to me. For example, the code in board/ti/omap2420h4/sys_info.c :: display_board_info should be:
void display_board_info(u32 btype) { static const char cpu_2420[] = "2420"; /* cpu type */ static const char cpu_2422[] = "2422"; static const char cpu_2423[] = "2423"; static const char db_men[] = "Menelaus"; /* board type */ static const char db_ip[] = "IP"; static const char mem_sdr[] = "mSDR"; /* memory type */ static const char mem_ddr[] = "mDDR"; static const char t_tst[] = "TST"; /* security level */ static const char t_emu[] = "EMU"; static const char t_hs[] = "HS"; static const char t_gp[] = "GP"; static const char unk[] = "?";
const char *cpu_s, *db_s, *mem_s, *sec_s; u32 cpu, rev, sec;
This produces smaller code and is probably what the original author wanted the compiler to do. I've only compile tested this, not actually run it.
Original file:
Sections: Idx Name Size VMA LMA File off Algn 0 .text 000004b4 00000000 00000000 00000034 2**2 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READONLY, CODE 1 .data 00000000 00000000 00000000 000004e8 2**0 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA 2 .bss 00000000 00000000 00000000 000004e8 2**0 ALLOC 3 .rodata.str1.1 00000072 00000000 00000000 000004e8 2**0 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
After my changes:
Sections: Idx Name Size VMA LMA File off Algn 0 .text 000003ac 00000000 00000000 00000034 2**2 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READONLY, CODE 1 .data 00000000 00000000 00000000 000003e0 2**0 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA 2 .bss 00000000 00000000 00000000 000003e0 2**0 ALLOC 3 .rodata 00000048 00000000 00000000 000003e0 2**2 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READONLY, DATA 4 .rodata.str1.1 00000047 00000000 00000000 00000428 2**0 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
Thanks Mike. Indeed, there is a range of choices to replace the original local char arrays: global arrays, static local arrays, char pointers, const char pointers, or even direct strings in code. I'd originally gone for const chars because the idea was not optimizing but getting rid of a compiler issue, however, with my toolchain, this led to warnings about losing the const qualifier, so I went to simple char*. I'll recheck with (const) static char[] and chose whetever gets the best score.
Regards,
Mark Marshall.
Amicalement,