On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:08:30 -0500 Haiying Wang Haiying.Wang@freescale.com wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 11:36 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:58:10 -0500 Haiying.Wang@freescale.com wrote:
From: Haiying Wang Haiying.Wang@freescale.com
Signed-off-by: Haiying Wang Haiying.Wang@freescale.com
arch/powerpc/config.mk | 4 ++++ config.mk | 7 ++++++- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
I see patch 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, and 7/7. Where are the rest?
Sorry, patch 7/7 is a wrong number here. I kept the patch # as 3/8/, 4/8, 5/8, 8/8 to be consistent with the order in the patchset(v2) I submitted in last December. I thought it would be clearer to compare them with v2 version and review. Patch 1/8,2/8 have been applied by Kumar, patch 6/8, 7/8 remain the same as v2 version. This patch, is a new patch because that TPL still needs --gc-sections in linker option to do partial link.
If it is preferable to have new whole set of patch, I can reorder them from 3/8-8/8 plus this one to submit.
Just produce a new complete patchset of what still needs to be applied. Don't preserve the numbering.
diff --git a/config.mk b/config.mk index 5147c35..d7bb07f 100644 --- a/config.mk +++ b/config.mk @@ -260,8 +260,13 @@ $(obj)%.s: %.c #########################################################################
# If the list of objects to link is empty, just create an empty built-in.o +ifdef CONFIG_HAS_TPL +cmd_link_o_target = $(if $(strip $1),\
$(LD) -r -o $@ $1,\rm -f $@; $(AR) rcs $@ )+else cmd_link_o_target = $(if $(strip $1),\ $(LD) $(LDFLAGS) -r -o $@ $1,\ rm -f $@; $(AR) rcs $@ )
+endif
What's going on here?
For CONFIG_HAS_TPL, LDFLAGS has --gc-sections now, passing it to cmd_link_o_target here will fail in linking stage: " powerpc-none-linux-gnuspe-ld: gc-sections requires either an entry or an undefined symbol "
I think --gc-sections should go in LDFLAGS_u-boot instead.
In any case, I don't think we want different behavior here based on whether we have TPL. Either LDFLAGS is used in partial linking, or it's not.
-Scott