Hi Sam, On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 22:25, Sam Edwards <cfswo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ilias, > > On 5/22/23 01:00, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > The reason we end up with both hash and gnu.hash is because the hash > > style is set to 'both'. Should we perhaps use (and strip) only one of > > them? > > If we do keep one, it should probably be .hash -- see commit b02bfc4dfc. > > I admit I'm completely mystified as to why we need the hash tables at > all. The ELF spec says those are just for the dynamic linker, but > neither the EFI code nor the self-relocating thunk require it, and I > don't know of any target where the u-boot ELF itself is the shipped > binary.
Me neither > For all I know, there never was a need to include .hash and > Albert's commit fixed whatever problem he was facing only accidentally. > Do you have any insights? Unfortunately not. I just started looking up the linker scripts myself. > > LLD's --hash-style option doesn't appear to have a "none" option or I'd > just be making use of that here. Indeed. I am fine with the patch regardless, switching the makefile to only produce one of them is a nit anyway, since we'll eventually get rid of them Thanks /Ilias > > Cheers, > Sam