Le 13/10/2010 23:25, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> Does -msingle-pic-base work on ARM for both -fpic and -fPIC?
> I have a hard time making -fPIC work, I think it isn't possible
> with the current impl. of -fPIC on ppc.
>
> Jocke
From what I remember, there was no difference between object file
>
> Albert ARIBAUD wrote on 2010/10/13 11:05:09:
> >
> > Le 13/10/2010 09:07, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> >
> > > Did you use -msingle-pic-base too with -fpic/-fPIC? This is what
makes
> > > a difference(together with -fpic). The most interesting size is
> > > the total flash size IMHO. Reduc
Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12 21:54:10:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:17:38 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > > Yes, it is a simple symbol to add. I will do it twm if you don't
> > > beat me to it. it would be nice if you could try what works
> > > and not though.
> >
> > Could not wait, d
Albert ARIBAUD wrote on 2010/10/13 11:05:09:
>
> Le 13/10/2010 09:07, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
>
> > Did you use -msingle-pic-base too with -fpic/-fPIC? This is what makes
> > a difference(together with -fpic). The most interesting size is
> > the total flash size IMHO. Reducing insn's in RAM
Le 13/10/2010 09:07, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> Did you use -msingle-pic-base too with -fpic/-fPIC? This is what makes
> a difference(together with -fpic). The most interesting size is
> the total flash size IMHO. Reducing insn's in RAM at the expense
> of flash is not what most users need I thi
>
> On 10/12/2010 11:30 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Le 12/10/2010 23:00, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> >
> >> Yes, but the difference isn't really the arch. It is the
-mrelocatable
> >> flag that is the big difference.
> > Not only: obviously, implementing GOT relocation is not done the same
On 10/12/2010 11:30 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 12/10/2010 23:00, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
>
>> Yes, but the difference isn't really the arch. It is the -mrelocatable
>> flag that is the big difference.
> Not only: obviously, implementing GOT relocation is not done the same on
> both archs,
Albert ARIBAUD wrote on 2010/10/13 08:30:33:
>
> Le 12/10/2010 23:00, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
>
> > Yes, but the difference isn't really the arch. It is the -mrelocatable
> > flag that is the big difference.
>
> Not only: obviously, implementing GOT relocation is not done the same on
> bot
Le 12/10/2010 23:00, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> Yes, but the difference isn't really the arch. It is the -mrelocatable
> flag that is the big difference.
Not only: obviously, implementing GOT relocation is not done the same on
both archs, and it simply is not beneficial on ARM wrt PPC in terms
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:23:23 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Any idea if SPL is size optimized to death already or if there is some
> low hanging fruits left?
There are some things that could be shrunk -- such as hardcoding the
page size, removing prints, etc.
Still, it would be nice if we coul
Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12 21:54:10:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:17:38 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > > Yes, it is a simple symbol to add. I will do it twm if you don't
> > > beat me to it. it would be nice if you could try what works
> > > and not though.
> >
> > Could not wait, d
Scott Wood wrote on 2010/10/12 22:48:59:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:40:27 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Scott Wood wrote on 2010/10/12 22:16:14:
> > > The link address is of the pre-relocation NAND buffer.
> >
> > hmm, then I don't understand how you get by. Initialized static/global
Albert ARIBAUD wrote on 2010/10/12 22:37:54:
>
> Le 12/10/2010 20:11, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> >>
> >> Le 12/10/2010 19:11, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Figured I should mention that I have added -msingle-pic-base(from
ARM)
> >>> which
> >>> works nicely with -fpic(not sure if -fPIC
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:40:27 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote on 2010/10/12 22:16:14:
> > The link address is of the pre-relocation NAND buffer.
>
> hmm, then I don't understand how you get by. Initialized static/global
> ptrs should point into some random area.
It suspect we j
Scott Wood wrote on 2010/10/12 22:16:14:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:51:44 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Scott Wood wrote on 2010/10/12 21:20:26:
> > > We do need to relocate with NAND SPL. We start in the NAND buffer,
> > > but we have to move to RAM to free up the buffer for loading
Le 12/10/2010 20:11, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
>>
>> Le 12/10/2010 19:11, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
>>
>>> Figured I should mention that I have added -msingle-pic-base(from ARM)
>>> which
>>> works nicely with -fpic(not sure if -fPIC is possible) and reduces
> size
>>> even more:
>>
>> Since you
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:51:44 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote on 2010/10/12 21:20:26:
> > We do need to relocate with NAND SPL. We start in the NAND buffer,
> > but we have to move to RAM to free up the buffer for loading the rest
> > of U-Boot.
>
> Sure, but do you move to a s
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:17:38 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Yes, it is a simple symbol to add. I will do it twm if you don't
> > beat me to it. it would be nice if you could try what works
> > and not though.
>
> Could not wait, does this work for you?
>
> diff --git a/nand_spl/board/freesca
Scott Wood wrote on 2010/10/12 21:20:26:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:13:19 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12
20:19:38:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:41:56 +0200
> > > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12
> > 19:31
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:13:19 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12 20:19:38:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:41:56 +0200
> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > > Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12
> 19:31:25:
> > > > that moderate size increase in start.S breaks nand bu
>
> Yes, it is a simple symbol to add. I will do it twm if you don't
> beat me to it. it would be nice if you could try what works
> and not though.
Could not wait, does this work for you?
diff --git a/nand_spl/board/freescale/mpc8313erdb/u-boot.lds
b/nand_spl/board/freescale/mpc8313erdb/u-boot
Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12 20:19:38:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:41:56 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12
19:31:25:
> > > that moderate size increase in start.S breaks nand builds:
>
> > One thing I wonder about: How come NAND_SPL need GOT2 relocs
> >
Scott Wood wrote on 2010/10/12 20:25:40:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:19:38 -0500
> Kim Phillips wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:41:56 +0200
> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > > Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12
19:31:25:
> > > > that moderate size increase in start.S breaks nand builds:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:25:40 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:19:38 -0500
> Kim Phillips wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:41:56 +0200
> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > > Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12 19:31:25:
> > > > that moderate size increase in start.S breaks nand
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:19:38 -0500
Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:41:56 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12 19:31:25:
> > > that moderate size increase in start.S breaks nand builds:
> > >
> > > Configuring for MPC8313ERDB_NAND_66 board...
> >
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:41:56 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12 19:31:25:
> > that moderate size increase in start.S breaks nand builds:
> >
> > Configuring for MPC8313ERDB_NAND_66 board...
> > start.o:(.got2+0x4): undefined reference to `_GOT_TABLE_'
> > make[1]:
>
> Le 12/10/2010 19:11, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
>
> > Figured I should mention that I have added -msingle-pic-base(from ARM)
> > which
> > works nicely with -fpic(not sure if -fPIC is possible) and reduces
size
> > even more:
>
> Since you seem to be following the same path as I did on ARM,
Kim Phillips wrote on 2010/10/12 19:31:25:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:10:33 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Wolfgang Denk wrote on 2010/10/12 15:47:19:
> > >
> > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
> > >
> > > In message > > 0047d...@transmode.se> you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What happens when o
Le 12/10/2010 19:11, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> Figured I should mention that I have added -msingle-pic-base(from ARM)
> which
> works nicely with -fpic(not sure if -fPIC is possible) and reduces size
> even more:
Since you seem to be following the same path as I did on ARM, I may as
well ask:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:31:25 -0500
Kim Phillips wrote:
> that moderate size increase in start.S breaks nand builds:
>
> Configuring for MPC8313ERDB_NAND_66 board...
> start.o:(.got2+0x4): undefined reference to `_GOT_TABLE_'
> make[1]: *** [/home/r1aaha/git/u-boot/nand_spl/u-boot-spl] Error 1
I
Dear Scott Wood,
In message <20101012105258.37208...@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>
> Maybe call it _GOT_START_ or similar? _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ and
> _GOT_TABLE_[1] look like synonyms.
...
> [1] Global offset table table? :-)
Yeah. Please display the GOT table on the LCD display
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:10:33 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote on 2010/10/12 15:47:19:
> >
> > Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
> >
> > In message > 0047d...@transmode.se> you wrote:
> > >
> > > > What happens when one uses this patch in combination with a
> "standard"
> > > > (i. e.
Scott Wood wrote on 2010/10/12 17:52:58:
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:04:31 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ is a predefined symbol that the linker defines
to
> > be in the middle of the -fpic GOT table. It marks the end of the GOT
table
> > as far as we are concerned
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:04:31 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ is a predefined symbol that the linker defines to
> be in the middle of the -fpic GOT table. It marks the end of the GOT table
> as far as we are concerned(u-boot does not generate so many relocs that
> the
> link
Wolfgang Denk wrote on 2010/10/12 15:47:19:
>
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> In message 0047d...@transmode.se> you wrote:
> >
> > > What happens when one uses this patch in combination with a
"standard"
> > > (i. e. older, unpatched) GCC?
> >
> > Nothing, gcc will produce -fPIC relocs and the c
Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message
you
wrote:
>
> > What happens when one uses this patch in combination with a "standard"
> > (i. e. older, unpatched) GCC?
>
> Nothing, gcc will produce -fPIC relocs and the code will/should just work.
OK, so your change means effectively a no-op (except for t
Wolfgang Denk wrote on 2010/10/12 14:52:18:
>
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> In message
<1286887081-23172-1-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> you
wrote:
> > This add relocation of .got entries produced
> > by -fpic. -fpic produces 2-3% smaller code and
> > is faster. Unfortunately gc
Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message <1286887081-23172-1-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se>
you wrote:
> This add relocation of .got entries produced
> by -fpic. -fpic produces 2-3% smaller code and
> is faster. Unfortunately gcc promotes -fpic to
> -fPIC when -mrelocatable is used so one
This add relocation of .got entries produced
by -fpic. -fpic produces 2-3% smaller code and
is faster. Unfortunately gcc promotes -fpic to
-fPIC when -mrelocatable is used so one need a very
small patch to gcc too(sent upstream).
Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund
---
arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/start
39 matches
Mail list logo
