Am 22. Mai 2023 21:25:50 MESZ schrieb Sam Edwards <cfswo...@gmail.com>:
>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. 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?
>
Ubuntu's and Debian's u-boot-qemu package ships uboot.elf for multiple
architectures. Cf. https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/all/u-boot-qemu/filelist
You can pass uboot.elf as -kernel parameter to QEMU.
Best regards
Heinrich
>LLD's --hash-style option doesn't appear to have a "none" option or I'd just
>be making use of that here.
>
>Cheers,
>Sam
