On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.arib...@free.fr> wrote: > Le 02/11/2010 14:08, Steve Sakoman a écrit : >> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Albert ARIBAUD<albert.arib...@free.fr> >> wrote: >>> >>> Le 02/11/2010 05:05, Steve Sakoman a écrit : >>> >>>> I've been using gcc 4.3.3, so I haven't run into the issue that this >>>> patch is attempting to fix. >>>> >>>> I tested this patch using gcc 4.3.3, and while it produces a usable >>>> image, it causes the size of the image to grow from 227K to 433K! >>>> >>>> So perhaps we need a patch that uses a more restrictive wildcard. >>>> >>>> Steve >>> >>> Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. That'll go into V3 of my patch set I >>> guess, as Alexander's patch derives from mine and I most probably hit the >>> same size increase issue as he does. >>> >>> Wolfgang: that may mean the tx25 config file patch is unneeded. Stay >>> tuned. >> >> I should have stated that I was using gcc 4.3.3 and binutils 2.18.50, >> since indeed it does seem to be binutils related. >> >> I have had a couple of reports that the following patch works with >> recent gcc/binutils without increasing the size of the binary. >> >> Could others check and report results? >> >> Steve >> >> >> ARMV7: Fix build issue with recent versions of gcc/binutils >> --- >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds >> index 88a0fec..e690b58 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/u-boot.lds >> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ SECTIONS >> } >> . = ALIGN(4); >> __rel_dyn_start = .; >> - .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.dyn) } >> + .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.*) } >> __rel_dyn_end = .; >> >> __dynsym_start = .; > > Weird... This patch seems indeed more restrictive than mine, but the input > sections collected in .rel.dyn are actually the same for both. > > We can gain a bit less than 60k by overlapping .bss and .rel.dyn, but > certainly not 200k! > > OTOH, it happened during my 'cross-build' tests (using one chain's gcc with > another chain's ld) that the resulting u-boot was drastically reduced; but I > chalked that to my misusing of the build tools. > > Steve, can you indicate which toolchain excatly exhibits the 230k-to-430k > issue, and which board I should build?
I used gcc 4.3.3 and binutils 2.18.50 and built beagle and overo. Steve _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot