| Message ID | 1288668221-3255-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> > --- > arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds | 15 ++++++++------- > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds > index 88a0fec..34e0a79 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds > @@ -54,13 +54,6 @@ SECTIONS > *(.data.rel.ro) > } > . = ALIGN(4); > - __rel_dyn_start = .; > - .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.dyn) } > - __rel_dyn_end = .; > - > - __dynsym_start = .; > - .dynsym : { *(.dynsym) } > - > __got_start = .; > . = ALIGN(4); > .got : { *(.got) } > @@ -74,4 +67,12 @@ SECTIONS > __bss_start = .; > .bss : { *(.bss) } > _end = .; > + > + . = ALIGN(4); > + __rel_dyn_start = .; > + .rel.dyn : { *(.rel*) } > + __rel_dyn_end = .; > + > + __dynsym_start = .; > + .dynsym : { *(.dynsym) } > } > -- I've been using gcc 4.3.3, so I haven't run into the issue that this patch is attempting to fix. I tested this patch using gcc 4.3.3, and while it produces a usable image, it causes the size of the image to grow from 227K to 433K! So perhaps we need a patch that uses a more restrictive wildcard. Steve
Le 02/11/2010 14:08, Steve Sakoman a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Albert ARIBAUD<albert.aribaud@free.fr> wrote: >> Le 02/11/2010 05:05, Steve Sakoman a écrit : >> >>> I've been using gcc 4.3.3, so I haven't run into the issue that this >>> patch is attempting to fix. >>> >>> I tested this patch using gcc 4.3.3, and while it produces a usable >>> image, it causes the size of the image to grow from 227K to 433K! >>> >>> So perhaps we need a patch that uses a more restrictive wildcard. >>> >>> Steve >> >> Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. That'll go into V3 of my patch set I >> guess, as Alexander's patch derives from mine and I most probably hit the >> same size increase issue as he does. >> >> Wolfgang: that may mean the tx25 config file patch is unneeded. Stay tuned. > > I should have stated that I was using gcc 4.3.3 and binutils 2.18.50, > since indeed it does seem to be binutils related. > > I have had a couple of reports that the following patch works with > recent gcc/binutils without increasing the size of the binary. > > Could others check and report results? > > Steve > > > ARMV7: Fix build issue with recent versions of gcc/binutils > --- > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds > index 88a0fec..e690b58 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ SECTIONS > } > . = ALIGN(4); > __rel_dyn_start = .; > - .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.dyn) } > + .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.*) } > __rel_dyn_end = .; > > __dynsym_start = .; Weird... This patch seems indeed more restrictive than mine, but the input sections collected in .rel.dyn are actually the same for both. We can gain a bit less than 60k by overlapping .bss and .rel.dyn, but certainly not 200k! OTOH, it happened during my 'cross-build' tests (using one chain's gcc with another chain's ld) that the resulting u-boot was drastically reduced; but I chalked that to my misusing of the build tools. Steve, can you indicate which toolchain excatly exhibits the 230k-to-430k issue, and which board I should build? Amicalement,
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@free.fr> wrote: > Le 02/11/2010 14:08, Steve Sakoman a écrit : >> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Albert ARIBAUD<albert.aribaud@free.fr> >> wrote: >>> >>> Le 02/11/2010 05:05, Steve Sakoman a écrit : >>> >>>> I've been using gcc 4.3.3, so I haven't run into the issue that this >>>> patch is attempting to fix. >>>> >>>> I tested this patch using gcc 4.3.3, and while it produces a usable >>>> image, it causes the size of the image to grow from 227K to 433K! >>>> >>>> So perhaps we need a patch that uses a more restrictive wildcard. >>>> >>>> Steve >>> >>> Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. That'll go into V3 of my patch set I >>> guess, as Alexander's patch derives from mine and I most probably hit the >>> same size increase issue as he does. >>> >>> Wolfgang: that may mean the tx25 config file patch is unneeded. Stay >>> tuned. >> >> I should have stated that I was using gcc 4.3.3 and binutils 2.18.50, >> since indeed it does seem to be binutils related. >> >> I have had a couple of reports that the following patch works with >> recent gcc/binutils without increasing the size of the binary. >> >> Could others check and report results? >> >> Steve >> >> >> ARMV7: Fix build issue with recent versions of gcc/binutils >> --- >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds >> index 88a0fec..e690b58 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds >> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ SECTIONS >> } >> . = ALIGN(4); >> __rel_dyn_start = .; >> - .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.dyn) } >> + .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.*) } >> __rel_dyn_end = .; >> >> __dynsym_start = .; > > Weird... This patch seems indeed more restrictive than mine, but the input > sections collected in .rel.dyn are actually the same for both. > > We can gain a bit less than 60k by overlapping .bss and .rel.dyn, but > certainly not 200k! > > OTOH, it happened during my 'cross-build' tests (using one chain's gcc with > another chain's ld) that the resulting u-boot was drastically reduced; but I > chalked that to my misusing of the build tools. > > Steve, can you indicate which toolchain excatly exhibits the 230k-to-430k > issue, and which board I should build? I used gcc 4.3.3 and binutils 2.18.50 and built beagle and overo. Steve
Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@free.fr> writes: > Le 02/11/2010 14:08, Steve Sakoman a écrit : >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Albert ARIBAUD<albert.aribaud@free.fr> wrote: >>> Le 02/11/2010 05:05, Steve Sakoman a écrit : >>> >>>> I've been using gcc 4.3.3, so I haven't run into the issue that this >>>> patch is attempting to fix. >>>> >>>> I tested this patch using gcc 4.3.3, and while it produces a usable >>>> image, it causes the size of the image to grow from 227K to 433K! >>>> >>>> So perhaps we need a patch that uses a more restrictive wildcard. >>>> >>>> Steve >>> >>> Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. That'll go into V3 of my patch set I >>> guess, as Alexander's patch derives from mine and I most probably hit the >>> same size increase issue as he does. >>> >>> Wolfgang: that may mean the tx25 config file patch is unneeded. Stay tuned. >> >> I should have stated that I was using gcc 4.3.3 and binutils 2.18.50, >> since indeed it does seem to be binutils related. >> >> I have had a couple of reports that the following patch works with >> recent gcc/binutils without increasing the size of the binary. >> >> Could others check and report results? >> >> Steve >> >> >> ARMV7: Fix build issue with recent versions of gcc/binutils >> --- >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds >> index 88a0fec..e690b58 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds >> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ SECTIONS >> } >> . = ALIGN(4); >> __rel_dyn_start = .; >> - .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.dyn) } >> + .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.*) } >> __rel_dyn_end = .; >> >> __dynsym_start = .; > > Weird... This patch seems indeed more restrictive than mine, but the > input sections collected in .rel.dyn are actually the same for both. > > We can gain a bit less than 60k by overlapping .bss and .rel.dyn, but > certainly not 200k! > > OTOH, it happened during my 'cross-build' tests (using one chain's gcc > with another chain's ld) that the resulting u-boot was drastically > reduced; but I chalked that to my misusing of the build tools. > > Steve, can you indicate which toolchain excatly exhibits the > 230k-to-430k issue, and which board I should build? The problem is that the first patch posted here places .rel.dyn after .bss, so when dumping u-boot.img, all of .bss is included in the file. Keeping it before .bss allows the flat binary to omit .bss as usual. Using the patch quoted above, I get a working u-boot from all combinations of gcc and binutils I cared to try, including gcc 4.5-linaro with binutils 2.20.1.
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds index 88a0fec..34e0a79 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds @@ -54,13 +54,6 @@ SECTIONS *(.data.rel.ro) } . = ALIGN(4); - __rel_dyn_start = .; - .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.dyn) } - __rel_dyn_end = .; - - __dynsym_start = .; - .dynsym : { *(.dynsym) } - __got_start = .; . = ALIGN(4); .got : { *(.got) } @@ -74,4 +67,12 @@ SECTIONS __bss_start = .; .bss : { *(.bss) } _end = .; + + . = ALIGN(4); + __rel_dyn_start = .; + .rel.dyn : { *(.rel*) } + __rel_dyn_end = .; + + __dynsym_start = .; + .dynsym : { *(.dynsym) } }
Signed-off-by: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> --- arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds | 15 ++++++++------- 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)