Patchwork [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Wolfgang Denk
Date Nov. 29, 2010, 11:29 a.m.
Message ID <20101129112935.6CF0F11D94F7@gemini.denx.de>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/73416/
State RFC
Headers show

Comments

Wolfgang Denk - Nov. 29, 2010, 11:29 a.m.
Dear "Premi, Sanjeev",

can you *please* quote only _relevant_ parts of previous messages?
Thanks.

In message <B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB5930247A0A9D4@dbde02.ent.ti.com> you wrote:
>
>      I had been holding this patch until until the problem is
>      really solved - just in case there was a relation.

You mean you are complaining about problems with code you have
modified locally, and then expect us to diagnose your problems without
even telling us 1) that you changed the code and 2) what exactly you
changed?

This not exactly a useful approach.

> [patch]
> diff --git a/include/configs/omap3_evm.h b/include/configs/omap3_evm.h
> index aeb45c6..c93f689 100644
> --- a/include/configs/omap3_evm.h
> +++ b/include/configs/omap3_evm.h
> @@ -348,7 +348,9 @@ extern unsigned int boot_flash_type;
>   * Support for relocation
>   */
>  #define CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE          PHYS_SDRAM_1
> -#define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR                (LOW_LEVEL_SRAM_STACK - CONFIG_SYS_GBL_D
> +#define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR                (LOW_LEVEL_SRAM_STACK \
> +                                               - GENERATED_GBL_DATA_SIZE)
> +

This patch is corrupted.and does not apply.  Please see
http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches


I have no idea if it results in a running system (as I have no
hardware to test it), but I can confirm that a patch like this:


will result in a clean build:

$ ./MAKEALL omap3_evm
Configuring for omap3_evm board...
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
 247396   10384  257384  515164   7dc5c /work/wd/tmp-arm/u-boot

--------------------- SUMMARY ----------------------------
Boards compiled: 1
----------------------------------------------------------




Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk
Sanjeev Premi - Nov. 29, 2010, 11:48 a.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd@denx.de] 
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:00 PM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: Albert ARIBAUD; u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain

[snip]

> >      I had been holding this patch until until the problem is
> >      really solved - just in case there was a relation.
> 
> You mean you are complaining about problems with code you have
> modified locally, and then expect us to diagnose your problems without
> even telling us 1) that you changed the code and 2) what exactly you
> changed?

[sp] In my original message I did mention about local change. At least,
     then, I believed them to be unrelated... and mentioned so.

> 
> This patch is corrupted.and does not apply.  Please see
> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches
> 

[sp] I shared the patch with Albert off-the-list as he had planned
     to work on it... It was to indicate the change that I was doing.

     BTW, I now notice that few chars on the pasted diff seem to have
     been trimed (not sure why) therefore patch didn't apply. Should
     have been more careful...

     I have posted an updated patch refreshed against the latest
     master few mins back.

> 
> I have no idea if it results in a running system (as I have no
> hardware to test it), but I can confirm that a patch like this:
> 
> diff --git a/include/configs/omap3_evm.h b/include/configs/omap3_evm.h
> index 84b2986..f3df8de 100644
> --- a/include/configs/omap3_evm.h
> +++ b/include/configs/omap3_evm.h
> @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ extern unsigned int boot_flash_type;
>   * Support for relocation
>   */
>  #define CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE		PHYS_SDRAM_1
> -#define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR		
> (LOW_LEVEL_SRAM_STACK - CONFIG_SYS_GBL_DATA_SIZE)
> +#define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR		
> (LOW_LEVEL_SRAM_STACK - GENERATED_GBL_DATA_SIZE)

[sp] Although, you the patch I send earlier didn't apply cleanly,
     I was making the same change... and noticing the failures.

     As mentioned earlier, I did not expect to see any errors after
     making this change.

     I am process of downloading the 2009q3 version from codesourcery
     Albert mentioned he is using it. Are you on the same version as
     well?

~sanjeev

[snip]
Wolfgang Denk - Nov. 29, 2010, 12:05 p.m.
Dear "Premi, Sanjeev",

In message <B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB5930247A0AA6E@dbde02.ent.ti.com> you wrote:
>
>      I am process of downloading the 2009q3 version from codesourcery
>      Albert mentioned he is using it. Are you on the same version as
>      well?

No, I'm using ELDk 4.2

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk
Sanjeev Premi - Nov. 29, 2010, 3:08 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd@denx.de] 
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:35 PM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: Albert ARIBAUD; u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain
> 
> Dear "Premi, Sanjeev",
> 
> In message 
> <B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB5930247A0AA6E@dbde02.ent.ti.com>
>  you wrote:
> >
> >      I am process of downloading the 2009q3 version from 
> codesourcery
> >      Albert mentioned he is using it. Are you on the same version as
> >      well?
> 
> No, I'm using ELDk 4.2

[sp] Okay, so I downloaded both 2009-q3 and 2010.09-50 versions of the
     Codesourcery Lite edition.
     
     There is no difference in the observations between 2009q3 and 2010q1.

     However, the 2010.09-50 returns with screen pages full of the "undefined
     reference errors" and assertion failures in linker - probably due to
     undefined symbols.

     I tried to revert "sort" shared by Wolfgang; even that didn't help.

     I will start working backwards from the errors I notice with 2010.09-50.
     Should I post the errors?

~sanjeev

> 
> 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
> Vulcans do not approve of violence.
> 	-- Spock, "Journey to Babel", stardate 3842.4
>
Albert ARIBAUD - Nov. 29, 2010, 3:33 p.m.
Le 29/11/2010 16:08, Premi, Sanjeev a écrit :

>       I will start working backwards from the errors I notice with 2010.09-50.
>       Should I post the errors?

You should post patches against the master branch for others to be able 
to build the same code as you build. Do not post the compile errors, 
though: rather, try and find why they occur and post your conclusions.

> ~sanjeev

Amicalement,
Sanjeev Premi - Nov. 29, 2010, 3:39 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud@free.fr] 
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:04 PM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: Wolfgang Denk; u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain
> 
> Le 29/11/2010 16:08, Premi, Sanjeev a écrit :
> 
> >       I will start working backwards from the errors I 
> notice with 2010.09-50.
> >       Should I post the errors?
> 
> You should post patches against the master branch for others 
> to be able 
> to build the same code as you build. Do not post the compile errors, 
> though: rather, try and find why they occur and post your conclusions.

[sp] I am working on analysis.

> 
> > ~sanjeev
> 
> Amicalement,
> -- 
> Albert.
>

Patch

diff --git a/include/configs/omap3_evm.h b/include/configs/omap3_evm.h
index 84b2986..f3df8de 100644
--- a/include/configs/omap3_evm.h
+++ b/include/configs/omap3_evm.h
@@ -330,7 +330,7 @@  extern unsigned int boot_flash_type;
  * Support for relocation
  */
 #define CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE		PHYS_SDRAM_1
-#define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR		(LOW_LEVEL_SRAM_STACK - CONFIG_SYS_GBL_DATA_SIZE)
+#define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR		(LOW_LEVEL_SRAM_STACK - GENERATED_GBL_DATA_SIZE)
 
 /*
  * Define the board revision statically