-----Original Message----- From: u-boot-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:u-boot-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of vb Sent: den 24 juli 2008 20:26 To: Kenneth Johansson Cc: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net; Haavard Skinnemoen; Wolfgang Denk Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Kenneth Johansson kenneth@southpole.se wrote:
I have run u-boot with everything compiled with -mrelocatable and normal relocation fixup code removed so I know it works fine. So consider it proven. But since it apparently is a problem in some situation the best is probably to make it a configuration option.
From what I saw in my limited experiment, there is no code (as in CPU
instructions) generated by gcc, just a data section containing offsets.
Maybe the linker is supposed to add some code to the startup file to handle that section in case it is invoked with -mrelocatable (on't know if it would recognize this an option) or detects .fixup section in the .o files being linked. It is a mute point for embedded development anyways.
I *think* the only thing missing is a simple function to scan the .fixup table and fix the pointers after relocation.
You don't need that much, just reapply Grants patch(mentioned early in the debate) that were reverted because it did not work for everyone, probably due to some other strange relocation scheme. I too have run u-boot with full .fixup applied and it works. U-boot gets bigger, but that is most likely due to the old reloc code is just nullified instead of removed.
Jocke