| Message ID | 1291099039-49672-4-git-send-email-andreas.devel@googlemail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Wolfgang Denk |
| Headers | show |
Dear =?UTF-8?q?Andreas=20Bie=C3=9Fmann?=, In message <1291099039-49672-4-git-send-email-andreas.devel@googlemail.com> you wrote: > Without this patch the linker will SEGFAULT on some undefined weak > symbols. > > Suggested-by: Sebastien Carlier <sebastien.carlier@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann <andreas.devel@googlemail.com> > --- > arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/u-boot.lds | 3 +++ > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) Applied, thanks. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk
Dear Wolfgang Denk, Am 08.12.2010 um 23:52 schrieb Wolfgang Denk: > Dear =?UTF-8?q?Andreas=20Bie=C3=9Fmann?=, > > In message <1291099039-49672-4-git-send-email-andreas.devel@googlemail.com> you wrote: >> Without this patch the linker will SEGFAULT on some undefined weak >> symbols. >> >> Suggested-by: Sebastien Carlier <sebastien.carlier@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann <andreas.devel@googlemail.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/u-boot.lds | 3 +++ >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > Applied, thanks. Please do not apply that patch! I'm sorry I have split up the thread cause it lead to a generic timer discussion. Therefore I posted v2 of this patch series here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/89974 This patch is not needed, if no undefined weak symbol is available. This patch adds .plt/.rel.plt section which has R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT which is not handled in code. Therefore we do not really know what this patch does to the code, it was mostly a patch to handle the linker segfault described several times. regards Andreas Bießmann
Le 09/12/2010 08:24, Andreas Bießmann a écrit : > Dear Wolfgang Denk, > > Am 08.12.2010 um 23:52 schrieb Wolfgang Denk: > >> Dear =?UTF-8?q?Andreas=20Bie=C3=9Fmann?=, >> >> In message<1291099039-49672-4-git-send-email-andreas.devel@googlemail.com> you wrote: >>> Without this patch the linker will SEGFAULT on some undefined weak >>> symbols. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Sebastien Carlier<sebastien.carlier@gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann<andreas.devel@googlemail.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/u-boot.lds | 3 +++ >>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> Applied, thanks. > > Please do not apply that patch! I'm sorry I have split up the thread cause it lead to a generic timer discussion. Therefore I posted v2 of this patch series here: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/89974 > > This patch is not needed, if no undefined weak symbol is available. > This patch adds .plt/.rel.plt section which has R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT which is not handled in code. Therefore we do not really know what this patch does to the code, it was mostly a patch to handle the linker segfault described several times. Thanks for pointing this out. My bad: I did not relate the two series when going through patchwork. Wolfgang, I was about to send out a revert but after pulling u-boot.git and u-boot-arm.git I don't see Andreas' patch in there. If you haven't committed it yet, maybe you can fix this yourself? > regards > > Andreas Bießmann Amicalement,
Dear Albert ARIBAUD, In message <4D008638.4060004@aribaud.net> you wrote: > > > This patch is not needed, if no undefined weak symbol is available. > > This patch adds .plt/.rel.plt section which has R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT which is not handled in code. Therefore we do not really know what this patch does to the code, it was mostly a patch to handle the linker segfault described several times. > > Thanks for pointing this out. My bad: I did not relate the two series > when going through patchwork. > > Wolfgang, I was about to send out a revert but after pulling u-boot.git > and u-boot-arm.git I don't see Andreas' patch in there. If you haven't > committed it yet, maybe you can fix this yourself? Hm... strange... I am absolutely sure that I did apply these patches last night, and then I even pushed them out... ... but now I see no trace of this either. Don't know what happened (I should learn this lesson - this is what I get when _not_ having a beer ;-) Ummm... now I have a problem, because I have marked all these patches as "applied", both in patchwork and in my mail reader. This actually means that I have completely lost track of what is missing and which patches should be applied :-( Best regards, Wolfgang Denk
Dear Wolfgang Denk, In message <20101209094538.7B9BBD08A93@gemini.denx.de> you wrote: > > Hm... strange... > > I am absolutely sure that I did apply these patches last night, and > then I even pushed them out... ... but now I see no trace of this > either. > > Don't know what happened (I should learn this lesson - this is what I > get when _not_ having a beer ;-) > > Ummm... now I have a problem, because I have marked all these patches > as "applied", both in patchwork and in my mail reader. This actually > means that I have completely lost track of what is missing and which > patches should be applied :-( OK, I found the stuff. I have applied to my working copy of the master branch instesd of ARM. So only the "-pie" commit needs to be removed? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk
Dear Wolfgang Denk, Am 09.12.2010 11:32, schrieb Wolfgang Denk: > Dear Wolfgang Denk, > > In message <20101209094538.7B9BBD08A93@gemini.denx.de> you wrote: > > OK, I found the stuff. I have applied to my working copy of the master > branch instesd of ARM. > > So only the "-pie" commit needs to be removed? All of this series should not be applied. Two of them already upstream in u-boot-arm/master. Namely: - 0a41edaabb74f2ccfde62a232165088098763e3e MAKEALL: fix AT91 - 3a4ff8b3cd719372cb3b3a8432e68015d84f1fc2 at91rm9200ek: add configure target for RAM boot One of them is modified already in upstream u-boot-arm/master: - a429db7e3ce6136f80f22584588247926ba60b05 arm920t/at91/timer: replace bss variables by gd And last one of them (-pie) is superseeded by another one also already in u-boot-arm/master: - 305bf489d1e7dd70f45720720ae0066fcce3acb1 arm920t/at91/reset: board_reset: define weak symbol BTW: All the mentioned hashes miss Signed-off of custodians. Is that correct? regards Andreas Bießmann
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/u-boot.lds index a6f8b56..d8b77df 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/u-boot.lds @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ SECTIONS *(.text) } + .plt : { *(.plt) } + .rel.plt : { *(.rel.plt) } + . = ALIGN(4); .rodata : { *(SORT_BY_ALIGNMENT(SORT_BY_NAME(.rodata*))) }
Without this patch the linker will SEGFAULT on some undefined weak symbols. Suggested-by: Sebastien Carlier <sebastien.carlier@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann <andreas.devel@googlemail.com> --- arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/u-boot.lds | 3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)