On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 09:12 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:44:15AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 17:21 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> > > > <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy
> > > > > > > > > > > > Fleming wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <w...@denx.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In message <OF14C3D470.864842B6-ONC1257D7A.002471AC-
> > > > > > > > > > > > c1257d7a.0024d...@transmode.se> you wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my original mail I referenced this potential
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > solution, at least it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worked for me:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That looks like the correct fix but I presume
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both .data.rel.ro and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data.rel.ro.local should be added?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can confirm:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) The problem was observed with gcc 4.8.1 [as in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yocto 1.5.x / ELDK
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5.5.x].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Switching back to gcc 4.7.2 [as in Yocto 1.4 /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ELDK 5.4] makes the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem go away.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Switching forward to gcc 4.9.1 [as in Yocto 1.7
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > / ELDK 5.7] makes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the problem go away.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) For the problemativ 4.8.x versions of GCC, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > following patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently solves the problem for my (MPC5200
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > based) board - guess
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this would have to be applied to all .lds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > files...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds index
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cd9e23f..82c86d7 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc5xxx/u-boot.lds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ SECTIONS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _GOT2_TABLE_ = .;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got2))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > KEEP(*(.got))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PROVIDE(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ = . + 4);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _FIXUP_TABLE_ = .;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wonder which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach we should take?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel folks are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing [1] ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Was there a resolution to this thread? I just spent a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bunch of time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to figure out why u-boot was crashing, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > eventually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > determined that switching from 4.9.0 to 4.6.3 solved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I submit a patch to do what was suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > above? Or add the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "blacklist" patch? If so, it should be noted that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4.9.0 is the current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default installed when you ask buildman to install a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > powerpc cross
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compiler...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Blacklist patch please, thank you!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but all gcc 4.8.x versions?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There is a fix here
> > > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01679.html
> > > > > > > > > > > but I don't know if it got committed or not or which
> > > > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am using gcc 4.8.4 and it works but I have one problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > if I erase uboot
> > > > > > > > > > > after relocation, u-boot misbehavex or crashes so there
> > > > > > > > > > > is something off still.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Does it work for all but me to erase u-boot after
> > > > > > > > > > > relocation?
> > > > > > > > > > > Using T1040(mpc85xx family)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Here is a better URL:
> > > > > > > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/342888/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From what I can tell the above bug has been fixed in gcc
> > > > > > > > > > 4.8.5(4.8.4 has the error)
> > > > > > > > > > and 4.9.3 (by looking at varasm.c).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Adding KEEP(*(.data.rel.ro.local)) i u-boot.lds does not
> > > > > > > > > > seem to be the
> > > > > > > > > > correct fix as it is not an .fixup entry?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > After upgrading to gcc 4.9.3 I still see this bug(there is no
> > > > > > > > > .fixup entry)
> > > > > > > > > The bug can be avoided with -fno-ira-hoist-pressure and while
> > > > > > > > > you are it,
> > > > > > > > > throw in -mbss-plt to reduce size
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would something like this fix it then? Or at least work-around
> > > > > > > > in-field
> > > > > > > > toolchains?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/config.mk b/arch/powerpc/config.mk
> > > > > > > > index 83b49b5..2be5b46 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/config.mk
> > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/config.mk
> > > > > > > > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR ?= 0x40000
> > > > > > > > LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections
> > > > > > > > LDFLAGS_FINAL += --bss-plt
> > > > > > > > PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpic -mrelocatable -ffunction-sections \
> > > > > > > > --fdata-sections -mcall-linux
> > > > > > > > +-fdata-sections -mcall-linux $(call
> > > > > > > > cc-option,-fno-ira-hoist-pressure,)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__powerpc__ -ffixed-r2 -m32
> > > > > > > > PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m32 -melf32ppclinux
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In theory yes, that is what the above URLs claim and what my
> > > > > > > small compile tests supports.
> > > > > > > In addition, this works for me now:
> > > > > > > => printenv tftpflash
> > > > > > > tftpflash=tftpboot $loadaddr $uboot && protect off $ubootaddr
> > > > > > > +$filesize && erase $ubootaddr
> > > > > > > +$filesize &&
> > > > > > > cp.b $loadaddr $ubootaddr $filesize && protect on $ubootaddr
> > > > > > > +$filesize && cmp.b $loadaddr
> > > > > > > $ubootaddr
> > > > > > > $filesize
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > => run tftpflash
> > > > > > > Using FM1@DTSEC1 device
> > > > > > > TFTP from server 172.20.4.10; our IP address is 172.20.4.13
> > > > > > > Filename 'u-boot.bin'.
> > > > > > > Load address: 0x1000000
> > > > > > > Loading: ######################################################
> > > > > > > 7.4 MiB/s
> > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > Bytes transferred = 786432 (c0000 hex)
> > > > > > > ...... done
> > > > > > > Un-Protected 6 sectors
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...... done
> > > > > > > Erased 6 sectors
> > > > > > > Copy to Flash... 9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1....done
> > > > > > > ...... done
> > > > > > > Protected 6 sectors
> > > > > > > Total of 786432 byte(s) were the same
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK. Do you have some of the broken older toolchains as well? I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > this will at least correct 4.9 and maybe 4.8, but older toolchains
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > have that option (but if there's another option for making older
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > toolchains work, we can do that too on the other side of the
> > > > > > cc-option).
> > > > >
> > > > > I had gcc 4.8.4(before I upgraded) and it was broken. 4.8.2 is also
> > > > > broken.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think this bug is present on older(<4.8) gcc's, the author to
> > > > > the patch
> > > > > claims that bug is not present in gcc 4.7.3
> > > > >
> > > > > My old gcc 4.5.3 works fine also
> > > >
> > > > My 4.6.3 has the issue (but it shows up in a different place than with
> > > > my 4.8.3).
> > >
> > > Then we need a different flag there :( Does what Joakim found maybe
> > > provide a hint?
> > >
> >
> > Different? Does not -fno-ira-hoist-pressure help for all gcc's ?
> > -fno-ira-hoist-pressure is an optimization that u-boot can be without.
>
> I swear that I tried with my 4.7.2 toolchain (ELDK-5.3) and it didn't
> know about that option.
>
Then it could be another bug perhaps? Are you sure the bug is in 4.7.2?
I read test case as, if *.s has a:
.section .data.rel.ro.local,"aw",@progbits
.align 2
.LC5:
.4byte .LC0
Then there must be a fixup too.
Jocke
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
