> -----Original Message----- > From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.arib...@free.fr] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:54 PM > To: Premi, Sanjeev > Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de > Subject: Re: Build failures with older toolchain > > Le 22/11/2010 16:02, Premi, Sanjeev a écrit : > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.arib...@free.fr] > >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:02 PM > >> To: Premi, Sanjeev > >> Cc: Wolfgang Denk; u-boot@lists.denx.de > >> Subject: Re: Build failures with older toolchain > >> > >> Le 22/11/2010 14:50, Premi, Sanjeev a écrit : > >>> Tried the same stuff for overo and no issues! > >>> > >>> Since there linker scripts are same between omap3_evm, > omap3_beagle > >>> and omap3_overo, only difference could have been board > >> specific code. > >>> > >>> I was hoping to find some code that might be offending the linker; > >>> unable to find by inspection, I reduced the default configuration > >>> for the evm to as low as I could - still see: > >>> > >>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: section .bss [800fe358 -> > >> 800fee1b] overlaps section .rel.dyn [800fe358 -> 8010076f] > >>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: u-boot: section .bss vma > >> 0x800fe358 overlaps previous sections > >>> > >>> I am still not sure why the start of .bss and .rel.dyn for > >> omap3_evm start at same address > >> > >> That is because they are voluntarily overlapped. This > looks like the > >> patch I recently did, which in essence does overlap BSS > (which is not > >> used before relocation) and relocation tables (which are not > >> used after > >> relocation) so that the FLASH and RAM footprint remain minimal. > > > > [sp] Are you referring to this patch? > > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commitdiff;h=aaeb0a890a050b > 58be87fa2b165eec5fa947dc86 > > > > I see the change for arm926ejs/u-boot.lds and armv7/u-boot.lds > > to be similar. > > > > Your commit mentions about the new ld vs. old; I had seen this > > earlier as well. It was the reason for me to try CodeSourcery > > Lite 2010-q1 but there I get a different error - > mentioned in my > > first post. > > > > Which toolchain version are you using? > > I usually try the 2009q3 Code Sourcery and the ELDK 4.2 toolchains. > > Can you compare the ld invocation command lines for a failure > case and a > success case? The difference could be in the linker options.
[sp] Identical :( Would you want me to share the build logs or the last step? The generated u-boot.lds is also same. It was my first step. Then I started looking if there is any "forced" addition on specific section that may not be going well with linker/ relocation changes - reason for trying a minimal config. ~sanjeev > > Amicalement, > -- > Albert. > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot