[U-Boot] Relocation issue - need help!
Hi,
I'm trying to track down a "syntax error" issue that gets triggered when erasing the U-Boot image in NOR flash. Symptoms look like this:
=> print update update=protect off 0xfc000000 +${filesize};erase 0xfc000000 +${filesize};cp.b 200000 0xfc000000 ${filesize};protect on 0xfc000000 +${filesize} => run update Un-Protected 2 sectors
.. done Erased 2 sectors syntax error Protected 2 sectors => run update syntax error
git bisect found commit 199adb6 "common/misc: sparse fixes" as culprit; breaking this down further showed a single line in common/cli_hush.c to trigger the problem. This patch fixes it:
--- common/cli_hush.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/common/cli_hush.c b/common/cli_hush.c index 38da5a0..5bbcfe6 100644 --- a/common/cli_hush.c +++ b/common/cli_hush.c @@ -3127,7 +3127,7 @@ static void mapset(const unsigned char *set, int code) for (s=set; *s; s++) map[*s] = code; }
-static void update_ifs_map(void) +void update_ifs_map(void) { /* char *ifs and char map[256] are both globals. */ ifs = (uchar *)getenv("IFS");
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
In my latest u-boot builds I had some strange behaviour that I finally tracked down to not fixed up flash addresses in relocated u-boot. These addresses come from symbols in the .data.rel.ro.local section that is not handled by u-boot linker scripts at the moment.
Some background on relro: http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/189
Joerg Albert already inquired about this on the gcc ML: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00017.html and he already suggested a solution: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
So there a three things to notice: 1. Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment. 2. You might not notice that you have a problem until you erase u-boot from flash (and get your cache flushed). 3. Handling relro properly should be on the TODO-List
Maybe this is already common knowledge an maybe somebody is already working on this - but I did not notice yet. So in this case: sorry for the noise :)
2014-10-22 14:39 GMT+02:00 Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de:
Hi,
I'm trying to track down a "syntax error" issue that gets triggered when erasing the U-Boot image in NOR flash. Symptoms look like this:
=> print update update=protect off 0xfc000000 +${filesize};erase 0xfc000000 +${filesize};cp.b 200000 0xfc000000 ${filesize};protect on 0xfc000000 +${filesize} => run update Un-Protected 2 sectors .. done Erased 2 sectors syntax error Protected 2 sectors => run update syntax errorgit bisect found commit 199adb6 "common/misc: sparse fixes" as culprit; breaking this down further showed a single line in common/cli_hush.c to trigger the problem. This patch fixes it:
common/cli_hush.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/common/cli_hush.c b/common/cli_hush.c index 38da5a0..5bbcfe6 100644 --- a/common/cli_hush.c +++ b/common/cli_hush.c @@ -3127,7 +3127,7 @@ static void mapset(const unsigned char *set, int code) for (s=set; *s; s++) map[*s] = code; }
-static void update_ifs_map(void) +void update_ifs_map(void) { /* char *ifs and char map[256] are both globals. */ ifs = (uchar *)getenv("IFS"); -- 1.8.3.1
But I still have bad feelings - symptoms indicate that this is actually a relocation issue, as it only gets triggered when erasing the U-Boot image in NOR flash, so probably there are still pointers to data in NOR being used. This patch here is not suited to fix the original cause of this issue. But then, I do not see where there might be a relocation problem. To be sure I even verified that "ifs" and "map[]" are really in RAM all the time.
Has anybody an idea how to further track this down? Or is the patch above actually a real fix? If so, why?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Dear Dirk,
In message CANVMifLGzKz+=-K-E9_sSXBxpYPdG1YqEXc-tsCApi7WVxQAHg@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
So there a three things to notice:
- Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment.
- You might not notice that you have a problem until you erase u-boot
from flash (and get your cache flushed). 3. Handling relro properly should be on the TODO-List
I confirm that the problem is in my case with gcc 4.8.1, too. I did not try another compiler yet.
Maybe this is already common knowledge an maybe somebody is already working on this - but I did not notice yet. So in this case: sorry for the noise :)
I highly appreciate your hint, it was definitely very useful. Thanks!
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
So there a three things to notice:
- Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment.
- You might not notice that you have a problem until you erase u-boot
from flash (and get your cache flushed). 3. Handling relro properly should be on the TODO-List
I confirm that the problem is in my case with gcc 4.8.1, too. I did not try another compiler yet.
Yes, there have been reported issues when using gcc 4.8.1 for building an ARM kernel as well: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272
Regards,
Fabio Estevam
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 06:56:11PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Dirk,
In message CANVMifLGzKz+=-K-E9_sSXBxpYPdG1YqEXc-tsCApi7WVxQAHg@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
So there a three things to notice:
- Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment.
- You might not notice that you have a problem until you erase u-boot
from flash (and get your cache flushed). 3. Handling relro properly should be on the TODO-List
I confirm that the problem is in my case with gcc 4.8.1, too. I did not try another compiler yet.
Maybe this is already common knowledge an maybe somebody is already working on this - but I did not notice yet. So in this case: sorry for the noise :)
I highly appreciate your hint, it was definitely very useful. Thanks!
Is this ARM or PowerPC? The kernel has blacklisted 4.8.x for ARM in some cases, and this may or may not be related (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58854)
Dear Tom,
In message 20141022172811.GD25506@bill-the-cat you wrote:
Is this ARM or PowerPC? The kernel has blacklisted 4.8.x for ARM in some cases, and this may or may not be related (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D58854)
This is on PowerPC (MPC5200, i. e. the TQM5200S board I've had in my fingers yesterday for other reasons).
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Hi!
In message CANVMifLGzKz+=-K-E9_sSXBxpYPdG1YqEXc-tsCApi7WVxQAHg@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
So there a three things to notice:
- Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment.
- You might not notice that you have a problem until you erase u-boot
from flash (and get your cache flushed). 3. Handling relro properly should be on the TODO-List
I confirm that the problem is in my case with gcc 4.8.1, too. I did not try another compiler yet.
Maybe this is already common knowledge an maybe somebody is already working on this - but I did not notice yet. So in this case: sorry for the noise :)
I highly appreciate your hint, it was definitely very useful. Thanks!
Is this ARM or PowerPC? The kernel has blacklisted 4.8.x for ARM in some cases, and this may or may not be related (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58854)
Just for the record, I also stree strange issues with 4.8.1 on arm/socfpga. u-boot works ok when compiled with 4.7.2, and behaviour on 4.8.1 seems to change based on compiler flags (-Os vs. -O2).
If anyone knows some kind of workaround, that would be nice... I'm using bitbake with eldk-5.5, and changing that would not be too easy :-(.
Best regards, Pavel
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:27:42 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
In message <CANVMifLGzKz+=-K-E9_sSXBxpYPdG1YqEXc-
tsCApi7WVxQAHg@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
So there a three things to notice:
- Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment.
- You might not notice that you have a problem until you erase
u-boot from flash (and get your cache flushed). 3. Handling relro properly should be on the TODO-List
I confirm that the problem is in my case with gcc 4.8.1, too. I did not try another compiler yet.
Maybe this is already common knowledge an maybe somebody is already working on this - but I did not notice yet. So in this case: sorry for the noise :)
I highly appreciate your hint, it was definitely very useful. Thanks!
Is this ARM or PowerPC? The kernel has blacklisted 4.8.x for ARM in some cases, and this may or may not be related (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58854)
Just for the record, I also stree strange issues with 4.8.1 on arm/socfpga. u-boot works ok when compiled with 4.7.2, and behaviour on 4.8.1 seems to change based on compiler flags (-Os vs. -O2).
If anyone knows some kind of workaround, that would be nice... I'm using bitbake with eldk-5.5, and changing that would not be too easy
What is the issue that you do see and I do not see ? What are the symptoms?
Best regards, Marek Vasut
On Wed 2014-10-22 23:46:45, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:27:42 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
In message <CANVMifLGzKz+=-K-E9_sSXBxpYPdG1YqEXc-
tsCApi7WVxQAHg@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
So there a three things to notice:
- Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment.
- You might not notice that you have a problem until you erase
u-boot from flash (and get your cache flushed). 3. Handling relro properly should be on the TODO-List
I confirm that the problem is in my case with gcc 4.8.1, too. I did not try another compiler yet.
Maybe this is already common knowledge an maybe somebody is already working on this - but I did not notice yet. So in this case: sorry for the noise :)
I highly appreciate your hint, it was definitely very useful. Thanks!
Is this ARM or PowerPC? The kernel has blacklisted 4.8.x for ARM in some cases, and this may or may not be related (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58854)
Just for the record, I also stree strange issues with 4.8.1 on arm/socfpga. u-boot works ok when compiled with 4.7.2, and behaviour on 4.8.1 seems to change based on compiler flags (-Os vs. -O2).
If anyone knows some kind of workaround, that would be nice... I'm using bitbake with eldk-5.5, and changing that would not be too easy
What is the issue that you do see and I do not see ? What are the symptoms?
I'm not sure if you should be seing this issue, are you using gcc 4.8.1?
I get hang during MMC init. If I comment it out, it hangs at setenv of random variable. With changed compiler flags, commenting out MMC init does not get me to prompt.
I'll try to update to gcc-4.8.3 as gcc-4.8.1 has known issues. Pavel
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:57:39 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Wed 2014-10-22 23:46:45, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:27:42 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
In message <CANVMifLGzKz+=-K-E9_sSXBxpYPdG1YqEXc-
tsCApi7WVxQAHg@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
So there a three things to notice:
- Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment.
- You might not notice that you have a problem until you erase
u-boot from flash (and get your cache flushed). 3. Handling relro properly should be on the TODO-List
I confirm that the problem is in my case with gcc 4.8.1, too. I did not try another compiler yet.
Maybe this is already common knowledge an maybe somebody is already working on this - but I did not notice yet. So in this case: sorry for the noise :)
I highly appreciate your hint, it was definitely very useful. Thanks!
Is this ARM or PowerPC? The kernel has blacklisted 4.8.x for ARM in some cases, and this may or may not be related (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58854)
Just for the record, I also stree strange issues with 4.8.1 on arm/socfpga. u-boot works ok when compiled with 4.7.2, and behaviour on 4.8.1 seems to change based on compiler flags (-Os vs. -O2).
If anyone knows some kind of workaround, that would be nice... I'm using bitbake with eldk-5.5, and changing that would not be too easy
What is the issue that you do see and I do not see ? What are the symptoms?
I'm not sure if you should be seing this issue, are you using gcc 4.8.1?
I get hang during MMC init. If I comment it out, it hangs at setenv of random variable. With changed compiler flags, commenting out MMC init does not get me to prompt.
I'll try to update to gcc-4.8.3 as gcc-4.8.1 has known issues.
Actually 4.8.2 from ELDK 5.6 . I recall there were some fixes for GCC , but this should be fixed in ELDK 5.5.2 . See: https://www.mail-archive.com/eldk@lists.denx.de/msg00908.html
Best regards, Marek Vasut
Hello Wolfgang,
2014-10-22 18:56 GMT+02:00 Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de:
Dear Dirk,
In message CANVMifLGzKz+=-K-E9_sSXBxpYPdG1YqEXc-tsCApi7WVxQAHg@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
I am really glad this was helpful. It was very nasty to track down, so I was really concerned when I found it. For that reson I chose "u-boot ppc does not work with gcc 4.8" as a topic when I reported it to U-Boot mailing list and put you on CC on august 5th. But maybe I should have been more explicit, something like "APOCALYPSE NOW: u-boot ppc does not work with gcc 4.8" ;)
This problem is *not* fixed by the links Marek addressed.
Just a quick explanation of what is going on: Since gcc 4.8 we have new sections .data.rel.ro and .data.rel.ro.local. They contain absolute addresses that should really be fixed up in our relocation process but are not considered yet. In your case you wre running u-boot referencing the not fixed-up addresses which worked perfectly as long as they still pointed to valid content. But as soon as you erased flash this was no longer the case. To make debugging even more fun, behaviour also depends on cache contents.
In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it worked for me: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
Cheers DIrk
Hello Wolfgang,
2014-10-22 18:56 GMT+02:00 Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de:
Dear Dirk,
In message
CANVMifLGzKz+=-K-E9_sSXBxpYPdG1YqEXc-tsCApi7WVxQAHg@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
I am really glad this was helpful. It was very nasty to track down, so I was really concerned when I found it. For that reson I chose "u-boot ppc does not work with gcc 4.8" as a topic when I reported it to U-Boot mailing list and put you on CC on august 5th. But maybe I should have been more explicit, something like "APOCALYPSE NOW: u-boot ppc does not work with gcc 4.8" ;)
This problem is *not* fixed by the links Marek addressed.
Just a quick explanation of what is going on: Since gcc 4.8 we have new sections .data.rel.ro and .data.rel.ro.local. They contain absolute addresses that should really be fixed up in our relocation process but are not considered yet. In your case you wre running u-boot referencing the not fixed-up addresses which worked perfectly as long as they still pointed to valid content. But as soon as you erased flash this was no longer the case. To make debugging even more fun, behaviour also depends on cache contents.
Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it worked for me: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and data.rel.ro.local should be added?
Jocke
Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
In message OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC-C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se you wrote:
Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
Indeed.
In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it worked for me: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and data.rel.ro.local should be added?
I can confirm:
1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK 5.5.x].
2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the problem go away.
3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes the problem go away.
4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess this would have to be applied to all .lds files...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS { _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; KEEP(*(.got2)) + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) KEEP(*(.got)) PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are doing [1] ?
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Hello Wolfgang,
2014-10-23 15:10 GMT+02:00 Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de:
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are doing [1] ?
question is: what are the gcc folks going to do with the relro stuff? It seems the sections are not used in 4.9.1, but will this be true for future releases? If we are not absolutely sure they will not be used anymore, adding them to the linker scripts is probably the best option. Anybody with deeper gcc insights following this thread?
Cheers Dirk
On 23 Oct 2014, wd@denx.de wrote:
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are doing [1] ?
My understanding is this is for a completely different issue. The proposed patch is,
+# if ((GCC_VERSION >= 40800 && GCC_VERSION <= 40802) || GCC_VERSION == 40900) \ + && defined(__arm__) && defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) +# error Your version of gcc miscompiles stack frames +# endif
So, the proposed patch was blacklist gcc v4.8.[012] and 4.9.0 on the *ARM* when frame pointer tracing is enabled. This thread refers to a different bug where 'sp' is adjusted for a return while the 'fp' will still be references (for instance in a return calculation) above the 'sp'. It is a completely different issue than the '.data.rel.ro' which is on all architectures.
Also, if you read further in the thread, it seems that 4.9.0 does not exhibit this problem. The 4.9.0 was only suggested as the 'Known to fail' of bug 58854 shows '4.9.0'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58854
Apparently this was added during the 4.9.0 release process, but didn't make it to the official release. In any case, unless u-boot uses signals and/or an interrupt stack common to the mainline, this bug would not even affect the ARM cpus with U-boot.
On 23 Oct 2014, wd@denx.de wrote:
- For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch
apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess this would have to be applied to all .lds files...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS { _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; KEEP(*(.got2))
- KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro))
- KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) KEEP(*(.got)) PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
From my perspective and reading the blog below this patch seems sensible.
http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/189
I assume u-boot has no MMU enabled, then all the relocations should be similar. This would be for all architectures though?
Fwiw, Bill Pringlemeir.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
In message OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC-C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se you wrote:
Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
Indeed.
In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it worked for me: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and data.rel.ro.local should be added?
I can confirm:
The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK 5.5.x].
Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the problem go away.
Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes the problem go away.
For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess this would have to be applied to all .lds files...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS { _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; KEEP(*(.got2))
- KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro))
- KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) KEEP(*(.got)) PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are doing [1] ?
Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross compiler...
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC-
C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote:
Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
Indeed.
In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it worked for me: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and data.rel.ro.local should be added?
I can confirm:
The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK
5.5.x].
Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the
problem go away.
Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes
the problem go away.
For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch
apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess this would have to be applied to all .lds files...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS
{
_GOT2_TABLE_ = .; KEEP(*(.got2))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local))
KEEP(*(.got)) PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are doing [1] ?
Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross compiler...
Blacklist patch please, thank you!
Best regards, Marek Vasut
On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC-
C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote:
Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
Indeed.
In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it worked for me: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and data.rel.ro.local should be added?
I can confirm:
The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK
5.5.x].
Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the
problem go away.
Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes
the problem go away.
For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch
apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess this would have to be applied to all .lds files...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS
{
_GOT2_TABLE_ = .; KEEP(*(.got2))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local))
KEEP(*(.got)) PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are doing [1] ?
Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross compiler...
Blacklist patch please, thank you!
Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions?
There is a fix here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version.
I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still.
Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? Using T1040(mpc85xx family)
Jocke
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC-
C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote:
Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
Indeed.
In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it worked for me: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and data.rel.ro.local should be added?
I can confirm:
The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK
5.5.x].
Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the
problem go away.
Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes
the problem go away.
For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch
apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess this would have to be applied to all .lds files...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS
{
_GOT2_TABLE_ = .; KEEP(*(.got2))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local))
KEEP(*(.got)) PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are doing [1] ?
Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross compiler...
Blacklist patch please, thank you!
Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions?
There is a fix here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version.
I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still.
Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? Using T1040(mpc85xx family)
Here is a better URL: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/
From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error)
and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c).
Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry?
Jocke
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC-
C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote:
Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
Indeed.
> In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > worked for me: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and data.rel.ro.local should be added?
I can confirm:
The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK
5.5.x].
Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the
problem go away.
Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes
the problem go away.
For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch
apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess this would have to be applied to all .lds files...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS
{
_GOT2_TABLE_ = .; KEEP(*(.got2))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local))
KEEP(*(.got)) PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are doing [1] ?
Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross compiler...
Blacklist patch please, thank you!
Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions?
There is a fix here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version.
I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still.
Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? Using T1040(mpc85xx family)
Here is a better URL: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/
From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c).
Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry?
After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size
Jocke
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC-
C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote:
> Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
Indeed.
> > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > > worked for me: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and > data.rel.ro.local should be added?
I can confirm:
The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK
5.5.x].
Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the
problem go away.
Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes
the problem go away.
For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch
apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess this would have to be applied to all .lds files...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS
{
_GOT2_TABLE_ = .; KEEP(*(.got2))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro))
KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local))
KEEP(*(.got)) PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are doing [1] ?
Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross compiler...
Blacklist patch please, thank you!
Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions?
There is a fix here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version.
I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still.
Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? Using T1040(mpc85xx family)
Here is a better URL: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/
From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c).
Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry?
After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size
Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field toolchains?
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ --fdata-sections -mcall-linux +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,)
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote: > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC-
C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote:
> > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise. > > Indeed. > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > > > worked for me: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and > > data.rel.ro.local should be added? > > I can confirm: > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK > > 5.5.x]. > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the > > problem go away. > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes > > the problem go away. > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess > this would have to be applied to all .lds files... > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS > > { > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; > KEEP(*(.got2)) > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) > > KEEP(*(.got)) > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .; > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which > approach we should take? > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are > doing [1] ? > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272
Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross compiler...
Blacklist patch please, thank you!
Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions?
There is a fix here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version.
I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still.
Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? Using T1040(mpc85xx family)
Here is a better URL: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/
From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c).
Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry?
After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size
Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field toolchains?
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ --fdata-sections -mcall-linux +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,)
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux
In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my small compile tests supports. In addition, this works for me now: => printenv tftpflash tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr +$filesize && erase $ubootaddr +$filesize && cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr +$filesize && cmp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize
=> run tftpflash Using FM1@DTSEC1 device TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13 Filename 'u-boot.bin'. Load address: 0x1000000 Loading: ###################################################### 7.4 MiB/s done Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex) ...... done Un-Protected 6 sectors
...... done Erased 6 sectors Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done ...... done Protected 6 sectors Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
Hi!
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote: > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC- C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote: > > > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise. > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > > > > worked for me: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html > > > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and > > > data.rel.ro.local should be added? > > > > I can confirm: > > > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK > > > > 5.5.x]. > > > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the > > > > problem go away. > > > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes > > > > the problem go away. > > > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch > > > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess > > this would have to be applied to all .lds files... > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS > > > > { > > > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; > > KEEP(*(.got2)) > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) > > > > KEEP(*(.got)) > > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); > > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .; > > > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which > > approach we should take? > > > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are > > doing [1] ? > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272 > > Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time > trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually > determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. > Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the > "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current > default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross > compiler...
Blacklist patch please, thank you!
Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions?
There is a fix here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version.
I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still.
Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? Using T1040(mpc85xx family)
Here is a better URL: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/
From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c).
Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry?
After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size
Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field toolchains?
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ --fdata-sections -mcall-linux +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,)
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux
In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my small compile tests supports. In addition, this works for me now: => printenv tftpflash tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr +$filesize && erase $ubootaddr +$filesize && cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr +$filesize && cmp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize
=> run tftpflash Using FM1@DTSEC1 device TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13 Filename 'u-boot.bin'. Load address: 0x1000000 Loading: ###################################################### 7.4 MiB/s done Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex) ...... done Un-Protected 6 sectors
...... done Erased 6 sectors Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done ...... done Protected 6 sectors Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same
OK. Do you have some of the broken older toolchains as well? I think this will at least correct 4.9 and maybe 4.8, but older toolchains don't have that option (but if there's another option for making older still toolchains work, we can do that too on the other side of the cc-option).
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote: > > Hi! > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote: > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, > > > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC- > C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote: > > > > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise. > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > > > > > worked for me: > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html > > > > > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and > > > > data.rel.ro.local should be added? > > > > > > I can confirm: > > > > > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK > > > > > > 5.5.x]. > > > > > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the > > > > > > problem go away. > > > > > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes > > > > > > the problem go away. > > > > > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch > > > > > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess > > > this would have to be applied to all .lds files... > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS > > > > > > { > > > > > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; > > > KEEP(*(.got2)) > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got)) > > > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); > > > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which > > > approach we should take? > > > > > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are > > > doing [1] ? > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272 > > > > Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time > > trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually > > determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. > > Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the > > "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current > > default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross > > compiler... > > Blacklist patch please, thank you!
Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions?
There is a fix here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version.
I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still.
Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? Using T1040(mpc85xx family)
Here is a better URL: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/
From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c).
Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry?
After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size
Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field toolchains?
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ --fdata-sections -mcall-linux +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,)
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux
In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my small compile tests supports. In addition, this works for me now: => printenv tftpflash tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr +$filesize && erase $ubootaddr +$filesize && cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr +$filesize && cmp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize
=> run tftpflash Using FM1@DTSEC1 device TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13 Filename 'u-boot.bin'. Load address: 0x1000000 Loading: ###################################################### 7.4 MiB/s done Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex) ...... done Un-Protected 6 sectors
...... done Erased 6 sectors Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done ...... done Protected 6 sectors Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same
OK. Do you have some of the broken older toolchains as well? I think this will at least correct 4.9 and maybe 4.8, but older toolchains don't have that option (but if there's another option for making older still toolchains work, we can do that too on the other side of the cc-option).
I had gcc 4.8.4(before I upgraded) and it was broken. 4.8.2 is also broken.
I don't think this bug is present on older(<4.8) gcc's, the author to the patch claims that bug is not present in gcc 4.7.3
My old gcc 4.5.3 works fine also
Jocke
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se wrote:
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote: > > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, > > > > > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC- > > C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote: > > > > > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise. > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > > > > > > worked for me: > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html > > > > > > > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and > > > > > data.rel.ro.local should be added? > > > > > > > > I can confirm: > > > > > > > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK > > > > > > > > 5.5.x]. > > > > > > > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the > > > > > > > > problem go away. > > > > > > > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes > > > > > > > > the problem go away. > > > > > > > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch > > > > > > > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess > > > > this would have to be applied to all .lds files... > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; > > > > KEEP(*(.got2)) > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got)) > > > > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); > > > > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > > > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which > > > > approach we should take? > > > > > > > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are > > > > doing [1] ? > > > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272 > > > > > > Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time > > > trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually > > > determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. > > > Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the > > > "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current > > > default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross > > > compiler... > > > > Blacklist patch please, thank you! > > Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions? > > There is a fix here > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html > but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version. > > I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot > after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still. > > Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? > Using T1040(mpc85xx family)
Here is a better URL: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/
From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c).
Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry?
After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size
Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field toolchains?
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ --fdata-sections -mcall-linux +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,)
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux
In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my small compile tests supports. In addition, this works for me now: => printenv tftpflash tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr +$filesize && erase $ubootaddr +$filesize && cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr +$filesize && cmp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize
=> run tftpflash Using FM1@DTSEC1 device TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13 Filename 'u-boot.bin'. Load address: 0x1000000 Loading: ###################################################### 7.4 MiB/s done Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex) ...... done Un-Protected 6 sectors
...... done Erased 6 sectors Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done ...... done Protected 6 sectors Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same
OK. Do you have some of the broken older toolchains as well? I think this will at least correct 4.9 and maybe 4.8, but older toolchains don't have that option (but if there's another option for making older still toolchains work, we can do that too on the other side of the cc-option).
I had gcc 4.8.4(before I upgraded) and it was broken. 4.8.2 is also broken.
I don't think this bug is present on older(<4.8) gcc's, the author to the patch claims that bug is not present in gcc 4.7.3
My old gcc 4.5.3 works fine also
My 4.6.3 has the issue (but it shows up in a different place than with my 4.8.3).
Andy
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se wrote:
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote: > > > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, > > > > > > > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC- > > > C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote: > > > > > > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise. > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > > > > > > > worked for me: > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html > > > > > > > > > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and > > > > > > data.rel.ro.local should be added? > > > > > > > > > > I can confirm: > > > > > > > > > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK > > > > > > > > > > 5.5.x]. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the > > > > > > > > > > problem go away. > > > > > > > > > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes > > > > > > > > > > the problem go away. > > > > > > > > > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch > > > > > > > > > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess > > > > > this would have to be applied to all .lds files... > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > KEEP(*(.got2)) > > > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) > > > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got)) > > > > > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); > > > > > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > > > > > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which > > > > > approach we should take? > > > > > > > > > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are > > > > > doing [1] ? > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272 > > > > > > > > Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time > > > > trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually > > > > determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. > > > > Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the > > > > "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current > > > > default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross > > > > compiler... > > > > > > Blacklist patch please, thank you! > > > > Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions? > > > > There is a fix here > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html > > but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version. > > > > I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot > > after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still. > > > > Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? > > Using T1040(mpc85xx family) > > Here is a better URL: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/ > > From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) > and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c). > > Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the > correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry?
After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size
Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field toolchains?
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ --fdata-sections -mcall-linux +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,)
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux
In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my small compile tests supports. In addition, this works for me now: => printenv tftpflash tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr +$filesize && erase $ubootaddr +$filesize && cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr +$filesize && cmp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize
=> run tftpflash Using FM1@DTSEC1 device TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13 Filename 'u-boot.bin'. Load address: 0x1000000 Loading: ###################################################### 7.4 MiB/s done Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex) ...... done Un-Protected 6 sectors
...... done Erased 6 sectors Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done ...... done Protected 6 sectors Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same
OK. Do you have some of the broken older toolchains as well? I think this will at least correct 4.9 and maybe 4.8, but older toolchains don't have that option (but if there's another option for making older still toolchains work, we can do that too on the other side of the cc-option).
I had gcc 4.8.4(before I upgraded) and it was broken. 4.8.2 is also broken.
I don't think this bug is present on older(<4.8) gcc's, the author to the patch claims that bug is not present in gcc 4.7.3
My old gcc 4.5.3 works fine also
My 4.6.3 has the issue (but it shows up in a different place than with my 4.8.3).
Then we need a different flag there :( Does what Joakim found maybe provide a hint?
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 17:21 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se wrote:
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote: > > > > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, > > > > > > > > > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC- > > > > C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote: > > > > > > > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > > > > > > > > worked for me: > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and > > > > > > > data.rel.ro.local should be added? > > > > > > > > > > > > I can confirm: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK > > > > > > > > > > > > 5.5.x]. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the > > > > > > > > > > > > problem go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes > > > > > > > > > > > > the problem go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess > > > > > > this would have to be applied to all .lds files... > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 > > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got2)) > > > > > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) > > > > > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got)) > > > > > > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); > > > > > > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which > > > > > > approach we should take? > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are > > > > > > doing [1] ? > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272 > > > > > > > > > > Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time > > > > > trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually > > > > > determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. > > > > > Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the > > > > > "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current > > > > > default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross > > > > > compiler... > > > > > > > > Blacklist patch please, thank you! > > > > > > Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions? > > > > > > There is a fix here > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html > > > but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version. > > > > > > I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot > > > after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still. > > > > > > Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? > > > Using T1040(mpc85xx family) > > > > Here is a better URL: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/ > > > > From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) > > and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c). > > > > Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the > > correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry? > > After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) > The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, > throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size
Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field toolchains?
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ --fdata-sections -mcall-linux +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,)
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux
In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my small compile tests supports. In addition, this works for me now: => printenv tftpflash tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr +$filesize && erase $ubootaddr +$filesize && cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr +$filesize && cmp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize
=> run tftpflash Using FM1@DTSEC1 device TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13 Filename 'u-boot.bin'. Load address: 0x1000000 Loading: ###################################################### 7.4 MiB/s done Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex) ...... done Un-Protected 6 sectors
...... done Erased 6 sectors Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done ...... done Protected 6 sectors Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same
OK. Do you have some of the broken older toolchains as well? I think this will at least correct 4.9 and maybe 4.8, but older toolchains don't have that option (but if there's another option for making older still toolchains work, we can do that too on the other side of the cc-option).
I had gcc 4.8.4(before I upgraded) and it was broken. 4.8.2 is also broken.
I don't think this bug is present on older(<4.8) gcc's, the author to the patch claims that bug is not present in gcc 4.7.3
My old gcc 4.5.3 works fine also
My 4.6.3 has the issue (but it shows up in a different place than with my 4.8.3).
Then we need a different flag there :( Does what Joakim found maybe provide a hint?
Different? Does not -fno-ira-hoist-pressure help for all gcc's ? -fno-ira-hoist-pressure is an optimization that u-boot can be without.
Jocke
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:44:15AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 17:21 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se wrote:
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC- > > > > > C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote: > > > > > > > > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > > > > > > > > > worked for me: > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and > > > > > > > > data.rel.ro.local should be added? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can confirm: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5.5.x]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the problem go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess > > > > > > > this would have to be applied to all .lds files... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got2)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got)) > > > > > > > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); > > > > > > > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which > > > > > > > approach we should take? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are > > > > > > > doing [1] ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272 > > > > > > > > > > > > Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time > > > > > > trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually > > > > > > determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. > > > > > > Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the > > > > > > "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current > > > > > > default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross > > > > > > compiler... > > > > > > > > > > Blacklist patch please, thank you! > > > > > > > > Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions? > > > > > > > > There is a fix here > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html > > > > but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version. > > > > > > > > I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot > > > > after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still. > > > > > > > > Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? > > > > Using T1040(mpc85xx family) > > > > > > Here is a better URL: > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/ > > > > > > From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) > > > and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c). > > > > > > Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the > > > correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry? > > > > After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) > > The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, > > throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size > > Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field > toolchains? > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk > index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk > +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 > LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections > LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt > PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ > --fdata-sections -mcall-linux > +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,) > > PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 > PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux >
In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my small compile tests supports. In addition, this works for me now: => printenv tftpflash tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr +$filesize && erase $ubootaddr +$filesize && cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr +$filesize && cmp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize
=> run tftpflash Using FM1@DTSEC1 device TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13 Filename 'u-boot.bin'. Load address: 0x1000000 Loading: ###################################################### 7.4 MiB/s done Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex) ...... done Un-Protected 6 sectors
...... done Erased 6 sectors Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done ...... done Protected 6 sectors Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same
OK. Do you have some of the broken older toolchains as well? I think this will at least correct 4.9 and maybe 4.8, but older toolchains don't have that option (but if there's another option for making older still toolchains work, we can do that too on the other side of the cc-option).
I had gcc 4.8.4(before I upgraded) and it was broken. 4.8.2 is also broken.
I don't think this bug is present on older(<4.8) gcc's, the author to the patch claims that bug is not present in gcc 4.7.3
My old gcc 4.5.3 works fine also
My 4.6.3 has the issue (but it shows up in a different place than with my 4.8.3).
Then we need a different flag there :( Does what Joakim found maybe provide a hint?
Different? Does not -fno-ira-hoist-pressure help for all gcc's ? -fno-ira-hoist-pressure is an optimization that u-boot can be without.
I swear that I tried with my 4.7.2 toolchain (ELDK-5.3) and it didn't know about that option.
On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 09:12 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:44:15AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 17:21 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se wrote:
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC- > > > > > > C1257D7A.0024DEC4@transmode.se> you wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it > > > > > > > > > > worked for me: > > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume both .data.rel.ro and > > > > > > > > > data.rel.ro.local should be added? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can confirm: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5.5.x]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 / ELDK 5.4] makes the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7 / ELDK 5.7] makes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the problem go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the following patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200 based) board - guess > > > > > > > > this would have to be applied to all .lds files... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > > > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds > > > > > > > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got2)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got)) > > > > > > > > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); > > > > > > > > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which > > > > > > > > approach we should take? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are > > > > > > > > doing [1] ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a bunch of time > > > > > > > trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually > > > > > > > determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem. > > > > > > > Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the > > > > > > > "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current > > > > > > > default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross > > > > > > > compiler... > > > > > > > > > > > > Blacklist patch please, thank you! > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions? > > > > > > > > > > There is a fix here > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html > > > > > but I don't know if it got committed or not or which version. > > > > > > > > > > I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem, if I erase uboot > > > > > after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there is something off still. > > > > > > > > > > Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after relocation? > > > > > Using T1040(mpc85xx family) > > > > > > > > Here is a better URL: > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/ > > > > > > > > From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error) > > > > and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c). > > > > > > > > Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not seem to be the > > > > correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry? > > > > > > After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no .fixup entry) > > > The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while you are it, > > > throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size > > > > Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around in-field > > toolchains? > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk > > index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk > > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000 > > LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections > > LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt > > PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \ > > --fdata-sections -mcall-linux > > +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,) > > > > PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32 > > PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux > > > > In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my small compile tests supports. > In addition, this works for me now: > => printenv tftpflash > tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr +$filesize && erase $ubootaddr > +$filesize && > cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr +$filesize && cmp.b $loadaddr > $ubootaddr > $filesize > > > => run tftpflash > Using FM1@DTSEC1 device > TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13 > Filename 'u-boot.bin'. > Load address: 0x1000000 > Loading: ###################################################### > 7.4 MiB/s > done > Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex) > ...... done > Un-Protected 6 sectors > > ...... done > Erased 6 sectors > Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done > ...... done > Protected 6 sectors > Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same
OK. Do you have some of the broken older toolchains as well? I think this will at least correct 4.9 and maybe 4.8, but older toolchains don't have that option (but if there's another option for making older still toolchains work, we can do that too on the other side of the cc-option).
I had gcc 4.8.4(before I upgraded) and it was broken. 4.8.2 is also broken.
I don't think this bug is present on older(<4.8) gcc's, the author to the patch claims that bug is not present in gcc 4.7.3
My old gcc 4.5.3 works fine also
My 4.6.3 has the issue (but it shows up in a different place than with my 4.8.3).
Then we need a different flag there :( Does what Joakim found maybe provide a hint?
Different? Does not -fno-ira-hoist-pressure help for all gcc's ? -fno-ira-hoist-pressure is an optimization that u-boot can be without.
I swear that I tried with my 4.7.2 toolchain (ELDK-5.3) and it didn't know about that option.
Then it could be another bug perhaps? Are you sure the bug is in 4.7.2? I read test case as, if *.s has a:
.section .data.rel.ro.local,"aw",@progbits .align 2 .LC5: .4byte .LC0
Then there must be a fixup too.
Jocke
Dear Andy,
In message CAKWjMd71hXW9-ahCUQm_rWS6z5Srd3My4TJ4x3KDRTdsHXHb=A@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
...
Was there a resolution to this thread?
No, there was no real resolution.
My understanding was that there was an (unwritten) agreement that we should avoid the broken GCC versions and switch to GCC 4.9.1 or later.
I just spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem.
Switching to GCC 4.9.1 is also supposed to work...
Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross compiler...
In my opinion, we should blacklist the versions.
But I am well aware that this would upset quite a lot of people as their favorite toolchains would stop working, and not everybody is really flexible here.
So perhaps a patch would be better - but how to test this? It is probably not sufficient to fix the problem in arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds - all the other linker sripts in arch/powerpc/ look the same, so they probably need fixing, too. And what about the other architectures? Should we fix ALL linker scripts, even if we have no indication of breakage?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Andy,
In message CAKWjMd71hXW9-ahCUQm_rWS6z5Srd3My4TJ4x3KDRTdsHXHb=A@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which approach we should take?
...
Was there a resolution to this thread?
No, there was no real resolution.
My understanding was that there was an (unwritten) agreement that we should avoid the broken GCC versions and switch to GCC 4.9.1 or later.
I just spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and eventually determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved the problem.
Switching to GCC 4.9.1 is also supposed to work...
I haven't tried GCC 4.9.1, but I can now report that 4.6.3 didn't totally work. There was a constant string whose address was not being relocated. The result was that when I tried to boot, an sprintf crashed while trying to find its "%s:%d" at the unrelocated address. My familiarity with the relocation code is pretty weak, so I'm not sure if there's a bug in the code or in the compiler.
However, I can note that adding the extra KEEP lines to the lds made the crash go away:
--- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot.lds @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ SECTIONS { _GOT2_TABLE_ = .; KEEP(*(.got2)) + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro)) + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) KEEP(*(.got)) PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4); _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested above? Or add the "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that 4.9.0 is the current default installed when you ask buildman to install a powerpc cross compiler...
In my opinion, we should blacklist the versions.
But I am well aware that this would upset quite a lot of people as their favorite toolchains would stop working, and not everybody is really flexible here.
I'd be fine with blacklisting, but if we blacklist 4.9.0, it shouldn't be the compiler that gets installed when you run buildman --fetch-arch powerpc.
So perhaps a patch would be better - but how to test this? It is probably not sufficient to fix the problem in arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds - all the other linker sripts in arch/powerpc/ look the same, so they probably need fixing, too. And what about the other architectures? Should we fix ALL linker scripts, even if we have no indication of breakage?
At the very least, I would want the fix in arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot.lds. :)
That said, because the problem also exists in 4.6.3 (though it does happen in a different place for me with that compiler), I worry that there's a bug in powerpc relocation. It occurs to me that many systems would not notice if some read-only values were read from flash instead of DDR. The system I'm working on keeps its image on an SD card. Also, the image size for this system is 768K instead of 512K, and I believe that's mostly because of the data section.
I'm going to dig into it a bit more, but I'm confident the blacklisting isn't enough.
Andy
Dear Andy,
In message CAKWjMd6f6zv4ZzRhf1WkRbDAN7aO+HULevhX=iSTvUk-r+aDoQ@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
At the very least, I would want the fix in arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot.lds. :)
Well, I observed the problems on MPC5200 ...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (10)
-
Andy Fleming -
Bill Pringlemeir -
Dirk Eibach -
Fabio Estevam -
Joakim Tjernlund -
Marek Vasut -
Pavel Machek -
Tom Rini -
Tom Rini -
Wolfgang Denk