On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:03:36 +0100 Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> wrote:
> Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote on 2010/11/23 21:46:51: > > "Only these" that you've found so far, for the board you've tried -- > > Yes, that is what I wrote. Yes, I was just emphasizing that. :-) > > is it worth adding another pre-relocation landmine to shrink the image > > by 5%? I don't miss the manual fixups we had to do under the old > > relocation scheme. > > -msingle-pic-base does not require LINK_OFF per se. It will shrink the image > significantly for free. It enables impl. of true PIC and if you want to have > that too you need LINK_OFF. What is "true PIC" versus the rest of what -msingle-pic-base does, and what are the advantages? > > Is a missing LINK_OFF likely to result in a crash, or silent bad > > behavior? Will LINK_OFF be a no-op after relocation? > > Either crash or garbage printed on the port. Garbage possibly being empty strings that aren't noticed? Or possibly bad values changing program flow in nonobvious ways? > LINK_OFF is a NOP after relocation. It will be a NOP > if link address == load address too. "load address" being pre-relocation? Currently these must be equal (which doesn't seem particularly burdensome). Seems like there would be a high risk for a developer of board A to add new code that affects board B, and needs a manual relocation, but board A doesn't use this or loads at the link address, so it doesn't show up. Seems like a maintenance headache. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot