| Message ID | 20210307042538.21229-12-marek.behun@nic.cz |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
| Series | U-Boot LTO (Sandbox + Some ARM boards) | expand |
I forgot to drop this patch. It is not needed, please ignore it. Marek
Hi Marek, On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 12:59 PM Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote: > > I forgot to drop this patch. It is not needed, please ignore it. > Why is this not needed anymore? Regards, Bin
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:47:38 +0800 Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 12:59 PM Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > I forgot to drop this patch. It is not needed, please ignore it. > > > > Why is this not needed anymore? It was not needed at all, binman does not fail when its symbols are not explicitly declared to be visible.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 5:26 PM Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:47:38 +0800 > Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Marek, > > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 12:59 PM Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > > > I forgot to drop this patch. It is not needed, please ignore it. > > > > > > > Why is this not needed anymore? > > It was not needed at all, binman does not fail when its symbols are not > explicitly declared to be visible. Then why was it needed in the previous patch? Or is this due to undeterminism of LTO? Regards, Bin
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:31:26 +0800 Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 5:26 PM Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:47:38 +0800 > > Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Marek, > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 12:59 PM Marek Behun <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > I forgot to drop this patch. It is not needed, please ignore it. > > > > > > > > > > Why is this not needed anymore? > > > > It was not needed at all, binman does not fail when its symbols are not > > explicitly declared to be visible. > > Then why was it needed in the previous patch? Or is this due to > undeterminism of LTO? It wasn't needed. I did not test binman then, I just grepped for all occurances of __attribute__, found occurances where it looked like it would break LTO and applied, just to be sure.
diff --git a/include/binman_sym.h b/include/binman_sym.h index 72e6765fe5..f9c0e681c9 100644 --- a/include/binman_sym.h +++ b/include/binman_sym.h @@ -34,7 +34,8 @@ */ #define binman_sym_declare(_type, _entry_name, _prop_name) \ _type binman_symname(_entry_name, _prop_name) \ - __attribute__((aligned(4), unused, section(".binman_sym"))) + __attribute__((aligned(4), unused, externally_visible, \ + section(".binman_sym"))) /** * binman_sym_extern() - Declare a extern symbol that will be used at run-time @@ -59,7 +60,7 @@ */ #define binman_sym_declare_optional(_type, _entry_name, _prop_name) \ _type binman_symname(_entry_name, _prop_name) \ - __attribute__((aligned(4), weak, unused, \ + __attribute__((aligned(4), weak, unused, externally_visible \ section(".binman_sym"))) /**
Use the `externally_visible` attribute to declare binman symbols externally visible, so that when building with LTO the compiler does not optimize this data away. Signed-off-by: Marek Behún <marek.behun@nic.cz> --- include/binman_sym.h | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)