[U-Boot-Users] Bug in malloc()?

[michael.firth at bt.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rune Torgersen [mailto:runet at innovsys.com] 
> Sent: 29 October 2007 21:35
> To: Firth,MJC,Michael,DMM R; timur at freescale.com; 
> grant.likely at secretlab.ca
> Cc: u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net; gerald.vanbaren at ge.com
> Subject: RE: [U-Boot-Users] Bug in malloc()?
> 
> > From: michael.firth at bt.com
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rune Torgersen [mailto:runet at innovsys.com]
> > > 
> > > > From: Timur Tabi [mailto:timur at freescale.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:55 PM
> > > > 
> > > > So *all* versions of gcc 4.1 are broken, or just newer ones?  
> > > > Do we know exactly
> > > > which versions are broken?
> > > 
> > > Lerts start a list....
> > > Broken:
> > > gcc 3.4.3, glibc 2.3.4, binutils 2.15.94 gcc 4.1.2, glibc 2.5, 
> > > binutils 2.17
> > > 
> > > From: glikely at secretlab.ca [mailto:glikely at secretlab.ca] 
> On Behalf 
> > > Of Grant Likely
> > > 
> > > Actually, #3 is migrate to an *older* compiler version.  :-(
> > Unfortunately EABI relocation seems to be a rather 
> undocumented thing.
> > 
> > So, from Rune's list, it seems you actually need a 
> 'middling' compiler 
> > version, too old won't work, and too new won't work!
> > 
> > Sadly, I'm currently using gcc-3.4.3 for my U-Boot builds, so I'll 
> > probably try one of the other two fixes, at least as an interim 
> > measure, to prove that otherwise my u-boot-1.3.0 build is working.
> 
> Then use solution #1. (works on both 3.4.3 amd 4.1.2 for me)
> 
Will try that, it also has the advantage of being the easiest of the 3
options to try. Are there any bad side effects of disabling that define,
given that Grant's not keen to back it out more generally?

Michael