Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote on 2010/12/08 15:23:17:
Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message OF280890AF.2970DA02-ONC12577F3.004474F0-C12577F3.0044D6E5@transmode.se you wrote:
oh, and this does shrink the final u-boot a little, so that's good -mike
Nice, over the last years I have noticed that u-boot has grown a lot. I had to disable a few non essential commands to make it it fit.
Does anyone else share my concern about the rapid growth of u-boot?
I do, and always did. It's mainly features that drive the code size. Some recent changes (gc-sections on PPC) help a bit. And users submitting optimizations like above.
Yes, but I don't see any discussion about it. Just the occasional improvement that pop by every now and then.
I got my own theory were some of the growth come from: string literals Especially when using them in tables: static struct { ulong mask; char *desc; } bits[] = { { RSR_SWSR, "Software Soft"}, { RSR_SWHR, "Software Hard"}, { RSR_JSRS, "JTAG Soft"}, { RSR_CSHR, "Check Stop"}, { RSR_SWRS, "Software Watchdog"}, { RSR_BMRS, "Bus Monitor"}, { RSR_SRS, "External/Internal Soft"}, { RSR_HRS, "External/Internal Hard"} }; Obviously the strings consume space, but there is an hidden extra cost too: each string gets an fixup entry(4 bytes) and a GOT entry(4 bytes) too.
Jocke