[U-Boot-Users] Relocation of symbols?

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <8ECMIB8MIIC528283SP05OJFEB784F.42c2ad3d at pc-block> you wrote:
> 
> >I still can't understand why you cannot  simply  use  an  unitialized
> >pointer,  or  even one which has a random init value, and then adjust
> >it in your board specific code, say in a misc_init_r() or maybe  even
> >in a board_early_init_r() function?
> 
> Hmm, I take this as a refusal to help and a refusal to acquire new information. For me 

Bollocks. Why don't you just take it as what it is: a  question,  and
the attempt to understand your situation?

The attitude you display here does not really add to my motivation to
dig into this later tonight as I originally intended.

> this is quite a basic problem, perhaps with my understanding, but meanwhile I guess not 
> with my understanding, but with U-Boot itself. I'm not really looking for a workaround. 

That's a pity, because a workaround is probably easier available.

> The workaround for me, would be to change the common code and do another round of 

I think you could do without such a change. This may require a little
hack, and may even result in a not strictly standard  conforming  im-
plementation, but I think it can be done.

> failed. And once again, your suggestion to initialize a pointer in my project dependent 
> code, absolutely ignores the fact, that the array is declared in common code as:
> 
> extern const char walter[];
> 
> Perhaps you don't see a difference to the following notation, which I had to use in my 
> project dependent code:
> 
> extern const char *walter;
> 
> But there is one, even if you refuse to recognize. Feel free to ask, if you'd like to 
> know.

I have no idea why you think I ignored your arguments. I  never  said
anything  like  this. Of course there is a difference. I am perfectly
aware of this. But does it really prevent you  from  doing  what  you
want  to  do? There is so many things you can do. For a little demon-
stration of what can be done in C have a look at the winning  entries
of the IOCCC at http://www.de.ioccc.org/years.html :-)

> I also wonder, whether the issue with the relocation of statically initialized pointers 
> is solved?

There is no "issue" from my point of view. We know the situation, and
we know how to live with it (by manually relocating the pointers).

When I ran into this situation 5 years ago I  didn't  find  a  better
solution  in  a reasonable time. Feel free to show me that there is a
better approach.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will
find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it  on
the computer.