"Andreas Bießmann" <andreas.de...@googlemail.com> wrote on 2010/11/30 12:48:41: > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund, > Dear Albert ARIBAUD, > > Am 30.11.2010 10:41, schrieb Joakim Tjernlund: > > Albert ARIBAUD <alb...@aribaud.net> wrote on 2010/11/30 10:02:45: > >> > >> Le 30/11/2010 09:47, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit : > >>>> > >>>> Le 30/11/2010 08:06, Andreas Bießmann a écrit : > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann<andreas.de...@googlemail.com> > >>>> > >>>>> + cmp r1, #0 /* symbol == NULL ? */ > >>>>> + beq fixnext > >>>> > >>>> Nak. Don't hide a null pointer. NULL pointers are *not* relocated, since > >>>> they are a constant. If a NULL ends up in relocation tables, that is > >>>> because of a corruption *or* because it was to be relocated, and should > >>>> thus never be ignored. > >>> > >>> Depends, if the same routine is used for relocating fixups you need > >>> this test. Undefined weaks will generate a NULL fixup entry. > >> > >> Understood. > > > > note that I don't know how this routine is used so if just > > relocates the GOT you don't need to test for NULL. > > > >> > >> Weren't there an effort to not use weak symbols any more? > > > > ehh, not what I am aware of. Just that we should not use(ATM) > > undefined weaks. > > Ok, I did forget to investigate that as mentioned in > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/88024/focus=88324 > > Here are the results: > > Currently arm920/at91 devices have one undefined weak symbol in .dynsym: > > ---8<--- > Symbol table '.dynsym' contains 11 entries: > Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name > 0: 00000000 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND <corrupt> > 1: 10000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 1 <corrupt> > 2: 10028a28 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 6 <corrupt> > 3: 10029ff8 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 9 <corrupt> > 4: 100299f4 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS <corrupt> > 5: 00000000 0 NOTYPE WEAK DEFAULT UND <corrupt> > 6: 10029ff8 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS <corrupt> > 7: 10029ff8 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 11 <corrupt> > 8: 1002edf0 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 10 <corrupt> > 9: 100701c0 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 11 <corrupt> > 10: 1002edf0 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 9 <corrupt> > --->8--- > > ---8<--- > Hex dump of section '.dynsym': > 0x1002edf0 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ > 0x1002ee00 00000000 00000010 00000000 03000100 ................ > 0x1002ee10 00000000 288a0210 00000000 03000600 ....(........... > 0x1002ee20 25000000 f89f0210 00000000 10000900 %............... > 0x1002ee30 01000000 f4990210 00000000 1000f1ff ................ > 0x1002ee40 5e000000 00000000 00000000 20000000 ^........... ... > 0x1002ee50 14000000 f89f0210 00000000 1000f1ff ................ > 0x1002ee60 52000000 f89f0210 00000000 10000b00 R............... > 0x1002ee70 43000000 f0ed0210 00000000 10000a00 C............... > 0x1002ee80 20000000 c0010710 00000000 10000b00 ............... > 0x1002ee90 35000000 f0ed0210 00000000 10000900 5............... > --->8--- > > So there are two options here. > > First is to apply '[PATCH v2 1/2] arm920t/at91/reset.c: fix weak > reset_board()' second (and safer) is to apply (maybe modified) '[PATCH > RFC 3/3] arm920t: do not relocate NULL pointer'. > > which one is preferred? Or should we do both?
Both, you don't know what the future will be and perhaps someone wants to use undef weaks in board code. Jocke _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
