From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:51:19 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] ARM: problem with linker option -pie In-Reply-To: <4CCD2B7C.3040804@emk-elektronik.de> References: <4CCC8206.40206@gmail.com> <20101030204310.3C78A1522C0@gemini.denx.de> <4CCC85B4.6060102@gmail.com> <20101030211711.C45471522C0@gemini.denx.de> <4CCC915F.1090608@free.fr> <4CCCAACE.6060005@free.fr> <4CCD26B7.8090503@free.fr> <4CCD2B7C.3040804@emk-elektronik.de> Message-ID: <4CCD2E07.2030406@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Reinhart, Le 31/10/2010 09:40, Reinhard Meyer a ?crit : > Dear Albert ARIBAUD, > >> CS toolchain emits lots of >> warnings about type-punned pointer dereferencing, though none in nand >> code, and I think these are not related to our issue. > > Same with gcc 4.3.5 > >> I will now analyze the patch code to see if it contains relocations that >> should have applied but did not, or if it misses relocations altogether. >> My currently favored bet right now is that BSS may have gotten its own >> relocation table in later toolchains, but that's only a bet. > > u-boot.bin is 257KiB with 4.2.4 but only 251KiB with 4.3.5 ! > Either its much better optimised or the relocation info shrunk which > _might_ indicate something is missing in it... From what I see, the code generator emits "denser" code, which *could* result in a smaller relocation table, but that depends if the denser code does uses less literals (they're what makes the size of relocation tables). So I have to dive into some sample functions and see for myself; the fact that the linker obviously reorders code within .text does not help me much. :/ > Compiled with 4.3.5 last output is the "DRAM: 64 MiB" message. Then silence. > > I suppose you don't need u-boot.elf from me, if otherwise, ping me:) I'm ok now that I have a non-working toolchain to play with. :) > Best Regards, > Reinhard Amicalement, -- Albert.