[U-Boot-Users] Re: compile u-boot with recent toolchain : symbols problem

[David Ho]

Hi Anton,

I can confirm the same behaviour with

gcc-4.0.2 glibc-2.3.3 binutils 2.16
gcc-4.1.0 glibc-2.3.6 binutils 2.16.1

The yosemite config builds correctly however.

But my MPC852T based config builds with the same problem you saw.

u-boot-1.1.4

David


On 6/23/05, Anton Wöllert <aw at emlix.com> wrote:
> I've got the same problem with binutils 2.16 and gcc 3.4.4. also binutils
> 2.16.91.0.1 doesn't work right.
>
> >  >
> >  > I used to compile U-Boot with ELDK, but I currently need to work with
> >  > newer toolchain :
> >  >  - binutils-2.16
> >  >  - gcc-3.4.3
> >
> >  This looks line a binutils problem, then. May I ask why you  have  to
> >  use binutils-2.16 ?
>
> May I ask you why it should not be used? How to recover bugs, if people just
> use older software?
>
> >
> >  And which exact board are we talking about?
> >
> >  > The "__u_boot_cmd_start" symbol value, generated with this new
> >  > toolchain, is wrong (U-Boot crashes when relocating the command
> >  > table).
> >
> >  Can you please provide exact data, like the differences  between  the
> >  System.map  and  the  u-boot.map  files  when using binutils-2.16 and
> >  another, working version of binutils? [Please use the _same_  version
> >  of GCC for this comparison.]
> >
> >  > There are two new sections between "__u_boot_cmd_start" and
> >  > ".u_boot_cmd" address :
> >  >  - .data.rel.local
> >  >  - .data.rel
> >
> >  Can you please show exactly what happens?
>
> The above, i couldn't acknowledge, but u-boot definitly hangs _after_
> relocating to memory. it will dump 'Now running in RAM at .....'. But then it
> hangs. After relocating, it tries to manually relocate the command table. But
> that doesn't work. Don't know why, but with the patch it works.
> Obviously
>
>         __u_boot_cmd_start = .;
>         .u_boot_cmd : { *(.u_boot_cmd) }
>         __u_boot_cmd_end = .;
>
> and
>
>         __u_boot_cmd_start = ADDR(.u_boot_cmd);
>         .u_boot_cmd : { *(.u_boot_cmd) }
>         __u_boot_cmd_end = .;
>
> should be the same. However, this should be a binutils bug or the linker
> script voodoo that is done with the first script above isn't really valid.
> Maybe .u_boot_cmd gets misalligned. Maybe i should try to DEBUG(&
> __u_boot_cmd_start) in both (the patched and unpatched) versions to see,
> where it points, or maybe objdump show more. Btw. this happens on the tqm8xx
> board. Thanks to Vincent for recovering that, that saved me a lot of time...
>
> kind regards
>
> Anton Wöllert
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
> from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
> informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
> speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&opclick
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot-Users mailing list
> U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
>