Dear Peter Tyser,
In message 1254843932.24664.2083.camel@localhost.localdomain you wrote:
I personally like the current implementation of putting the bss after the entire U-Boot image. It keeps U-Boot's code, malloc pool, stack, bss, etc all in the same general area which is nice, and has the side benefit that the bootpg won't be overwritten.
OK, if you think so...
I know ORing in 0x10 is a bit ugly, but what's the real downside of doing it?
Nothing. I just hate to allocate the bss at 0x0, because this is actually incorrect - it's the result of an address overflow / truncation, and pretty much misleading to someone trying to read and understand the code. For the linked image, it does not _look_ as if the bss was located _after_ the U-Boot image, it looks detached and allocated in low RAM.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk