-----Original Message----- From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud@free.fr] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:54 PM To: Premi, Sanjeev Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: Build failures with older toolchain
Le 22/11/2010 16:02, Premi, Sanjeev a écrit :
-----Original Message----- From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud@free.fr] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:02 PM To: Premi, Sanjeev Cc: Wolfgang Denk; u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: Build failures with older toolchain
Le 22/11/2010 14:50, Premi, Sanjeev a écrit :
Tried the same stuff for overo and no issues!
Since there linker scripts are same between omap3_evm,
omap3_beagle
and omap3_overo, only difference could have been board
specific code.
I was hoping to find some code that might be offending the linker; unable to find by inspection, I reduced the default configuration for the evm to as low as I could - still see:
arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: section .bss [800fe358 ->
800fee1b] overlaps section .rel.dyn [800fe358 -> 8010076f]
arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: u-boot: section .bss vma
0x800fe358 overlaps previous sections
I am still not sure why the start of .bss and .rel.dyn for
omap3_evm start at same address
That is because they are voluntarily overlapped. This
looks like the
patch I recently did, which in essence does overlap BSS
(which is not
used before relocation) and relocation tables (which are not used after relocation) so that the FLASH and RAM footprint remain minimal.
[sp] Are you referring to this patch?
http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commitdiff;h=aaeb0a890a050b 58be87fa2b165eec5fa947dc86
I see the change for arm926ejs/u-boot.lds and armv7/u-boot.lds to be similar. Your commit mentions about the new ld vs. old; I had seen this earlier as well. It was the reason for me to try CodeSourcery Lite 2010-q1 but there I get a different error -mentioned in my
first post. Which toolchain version are you using?I usually try the 2009q3 Code Sourcery and the ELDK 4.2 toolchains.
Can you compare the ld invocation command lines for a failure case and a success case? The difference could be in the linker options.
[sp] Identical :( Would you want me to share the build logs or the last step? The generated u-boot.lds is also same. It was my first step.
Then I started looking if there is any "forced" addition on specific section that may not be going well with linker/ relocation changes - reason for trying a minimal config.
~sanjeev
Amicalement,
Albert.