Wolfgang Wegner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thank you all for all the comments so far.
>
> It seems I have at least 2 problems:
> - my gcc (m68k-elf-gcc (Sourcery G++ Lite 4.3-208) 4.3.3) does not
> produce correctly relocatable code; no matter if I give -fPIC or
> not (-mrelocatable is not accepted at
Hi,
thank you all for all the comments so far.
It seems I have at least 2 problems:
- my gcc (m68k-elf-gcc (Sourcery G++ Lite 4.3-208) 4.3.3) does not
produce correctly relocatable code; no matter if I give -fPIC or
not (-mrelocatable is not accepted at all), I do not get any
entries in .go
wolfg...@leila.ping.de (Wolfgang Wegner) wrote on 29/10/2009 16:44:55:
>
> Hi,
>
> although I have to leave for now, just some questions to see if
> there is anything I understood correctly until now...
>
> - in the PPC startup (assembly) files, the section .got2 is explicitely
> created using ST
Hi,
although I have to leave for now, just some questions to see if
there is anything I understood correctly until now...
- in the PPC startup (assembly) files, the section .got2 is explicitely
created using START_GOT etc.
- .got2 contains some vital pointers (vectors) as well as data
pointer
wolfg...@leila.ping.de (Wolfgang Wegner) wrote on 29/10/2009 16:00:04:
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 03:22:24PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > It seems like you don't have any relocation data as both __got2_entries and
> > __fixup_entries are zero. Something seems broken in general, perhaps y
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 03:22:24PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> It seems like you don't have any relocation data as both __got2_entries and
> __fixup_entries are zero. Something seems broken in general, perhaps your
> linker script
> is bust?
I took board/freescale/m5373evb/u-boot.lds with
wolfg...@leila.ping.de (Wolfgang Wegner) wrote on 29/10/2009 14:41:00:
>
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 02:08:05PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > Just to avoid any misunderstandings, the GOT does not hold offsets, it holds
> > absolute addresses. These addresses gets a
Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 02:08:05PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> Just to avoid any misunderstandings, the GOT does not hold offsets, it holds
> absolute addresses. These addresses gets adjusted with an offset when you
> relocate.
thank you, I already understood this.
>
> Dear Wolfgang Wegner,
>
> In message <20091029082113.ge3...@leila.ping.de> you wrote:
> >
> > Now I recognized that commit 6385b28116f775da4771b768ba9bf93c3aaaf26e
> > removed FPGA relocation, which of course breaks FPGA code for my
> > Coldfire board.
>
> This is an out-of-tree port, right? If
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:00:00PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang Wegner,
>
> In message <20091029082113.ge3...@leila.ping.de> you wrote:
> >
> > Now I recognized that commit 6385b28116f775da4771b768ba9bf93c3aaaf26e
> > removed FPGA relocation, which of course br
Dear Wolfgang Wegner,
In message <20091029082113.ge3...@leila.ping.de> you wrote:
>
> Now I recognized that commit 6385b28116f775da4771b768ba9bf93c3aaaf26e
> removed FPGA relocation, which of course breaks FPGA code for my
> Coldfire board.
This is an out-of-tree port, right? If your code had be
Hi,
I am using U-Boot on a Coldfire to load FPGA code (Xilinx Spartan3
and Altera Cyclone2, currently) and am just trying to update my code
base to current U-Boot for finally sending patches.
Now I recognized that commit 6385b28116f775da4771b768ba9bf93c3aaaf26e
removed FPGA relocation, which of c
12 matches
Mail list logo
