Timur Tabi wrote:
Jerry Van Baren wrote:
[snip]
I'm guessing from the name "eeprom" that you have a non-zero initializer on it???
No, no initializer.
Does it make a difference if it is uninitialized, initialized to {0}, or initialized to non-zero values?
I don't know, I haven't considered it.
I did notice this code in fsl_i2c.c:
#ifdef CFG_SPD_BUS_NUM static unsigned int i2c_bus_num __attribute__ ((section ("data"))) = CFG_SPD_BUS_NUM; #else static unsigned int i2c_bus_num __attribute__ ((section ("data"))) = 0; #endif
I wrote this code, but I don't remember why I added the "__attribute__ ((section ("data")))". I guess I should have commented it, but I wonder if it applies to my current problem.
It doesn't apply in the original complaint and may be flat out wrong, but I recall having a problem forcing a zero initializer into the data section. Gcc insisted on putting it in bss and, after playing language lawyer with the gcc manual/descriptions/etc, I concluded it was expected behavior of gcc.
[snip]
When I post the full patch, I'll revisit this problem. Sorry for all the noise.
Interesting quirk. We may give you a hard time, but that just betrays our curiosity. ;-)
Best regards, gvb