[U-Boot] U-Boot Bug with newer GCC

[Jeroen Hofstee]

Hello,

On 02/02/2013 09:37 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> Hello Wolfgang, Sebastian,
>
> On 01.02.2013 12:31, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> In message <E70AF999396FDF4EAE40E195B847096109F5D3A9 at SRVEXCH-2K10.CADCON.INTERN> you wrote:
>>> we are using u-boot in our embedded system with arm-1136jfs cpu.
>> Which exact system / board configuration is this?
>>
>> And which exact U-Boot version (git commit ID ?) is it?
>>
>>> We recently tried a new toolchain with GCC 4.7.2.
>>> If compiled with the new toolchain the feature CONFIG_AUTO_COMPLETE isn't working.
>> We have been using GCC 4.7.2 for several months now, on many systems.
>> No such problems have been reported before, so I speculate if this is
>> really a problem with mainline code?
> Sebastian wrote On 01.02.2013 08:55:
>> we are using u-boot in our embedded system with arm-1136jfs cpu.
>> We recently tried a new toolchain with GCC 4.7.2.
>> If compiled with the new toolchain the feature CONFIG_AUTO_COMPLETE isn't working.
>> U-Boot start normally and on hitting TAB the system freezes.
>> I tracked the problem down the variables __u_boot_cmd_start and __u_boot_cmd_end. Both are not valid with the new toolchain. And accessing one results in a system freeze.
>> Probably the is a problem in arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds. I really bad at linker scripts.
> I just see some problems with ll_entry_* functions described in my
> post here:
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-February/145711.html
>
> I do not know, if this is the same problem, as I face problems only
> before relocation, after relocation all works fine ...
>
> In this thread Marek wrote, that for this problem albert has
> a solution ... (CCed albert and marek)
>
> Albert? Can you help here?
I am tempted to think that is unrelated. First of all since you encounter
problems with the 4.6 toolchain. This trap is not present when
compiling with a 4.6 version (at least not for me).

Second, because I bothered Marex and Albert already with this
problem on irc and they concluded it could not be ll related.

Third, because dumping the array of commands to a console,
displays them all correctly.

Regards,
Jeroen