On Thursday 23 February 2012 05:17 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Aneesh Vane...@ti.com wrote on 23.02.2012 11:27:40:
The packed attribute specifies that all struct elements ought to be
considered to have alignment requirement 1 instead of their default
alignment. Thus the whole struct ends up
On Thursday 23 February 2012 07:26 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 23/02/12 10:27, Aneesh V wrote:
Ok. Agree. I never used to use %function when I wrote assembly
functions earlier. I am sure a lot of code will break if this was
enforced.
If you've not used %function on ARM, then your code is
Oops! Sorry. These mails skipped my Inbox and went into a sub-folder
in my mail client that I hadn't used for a long time. I didn't
realize that I had mails!
On Monday 20 February 2012 11:29 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
V, Aneeshane...@ti.com wrote:
I agree that not marking the assembly
On Tuesday 21 February 2012 03:27 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:59:53PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
V, Aneeshane...@ti.com wrote:
I agree that not marking the assembly functions ' %function' is a problem
in the code, so it's not a critical bug. But I would've been
Aneesh V ane...@ti.com wrote on 23.02.2012 11:27:40:
The packed attribute specifies that all struct elements ought to be
considered to have alignment requirement 1 instead of their default
alignment. Thus the whole struct ends up having alignment requirement
1;
and since the section
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:59:53PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
V, Aneesh ane...@ti.com wrote:
I agree that not marking the assembly functions ' %function' is a problem
in the code, so it's not a critical bug. But I would've been happier if
the linker refused to link it rather than
On Tue 21 Feb 2012 09:57:12 GMT, Dave Martin wrote:
struct pad_conf_entry {
u16 offset;
u16 val;
} __attribute__ ((packed));
The packed attribute specifies that all struct elements ought to be
considered to have alignment requirement 1 instead of their default
alignment.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:05:54PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Andrew Stubbs andrew.stu...@linaro.org wrote on 21.02.2012 11:56:07:
I'm not sure, but I believe that the compiler requires (prefers) any
structs that you want included inside packed structs to be themselves
packed, so you
V, Aneesh ane...@ti.com wrote:
I agree that not marking the assembly functions ' %function' is a problem
in the code, so it's not a critical bug. But I would've been happier if
the linker refused to link it rather than branching with the wrong
instruction. Isn't that a problem?
Well, if the
+ linaro-toolchain
Hello Ulrich,
I want to revisit this old thread. Sorry for the sloppy follow-up. But,
this time around I have more data.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Ulrich Weigand
ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Aneesh V ane...@ti.com wrote:
I was trying to build u-boot in Thumb2
Aneesh V ane...@ti.com wrote:
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 07:14 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
The R_ARM_THM_CALL marks the branch instruction as still to be
processed
by the final link step. And once you actually *perform* the final
link,
e.g. via gcc -o final a.out, the branch gets indeed
Hi Ulrich,
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 09:00 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Aneesh Vane...@ti.com wrote:
I was trying to build u-boot in Thumb2 for OMAP4. Everything was fine
until I added some patches recently. One of these patches introduced an
API (let's say foo()) that has a weakly linked
Aneesh V ane...@ti.com wrote on 03/16/2011 10:32:50 AM:
Can you try this sequence:
arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -march=armv7-a -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -o foo1.o
foo1.c -c
arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -march=armv7-a -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -o foo2.o
foo2.S -c
arm-linux-gnueabi-ld -r foo1.o foo2.o
Aneesh V ane...@ti.com wrote:
I was trying to build u-boot in Thumb2 for OMAP4. Everything was fine
until I added some patches recently. One of these patches introduced an
API (let's say foo()) that has a weakly linked alias(let's say
__foo()) and a strongly linked implementation(the real
Hi,
I have an interesting observation that I thought might be interesting
to the tool-chain team.
I was trying to build u-boot in Thumb2 for OMAP4. Everything was fine
until I added some patches recently. One of these patches introduced an
API (let's say foo()) that has a weakly linked
15 matches
Mail list logo
