[U-Boot] Please pull u-boot-dm

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:12:57PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:55:12PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:53:34PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> > > >>I've been happy when I can use gcc-6.x for all the free cost savings but
> > > >>current Debian tools (and current Fedora, and current any other big
> > > >>distro) toolchains matter too.  You can also see the size growth (but
> > > >>not to fatal proportions) on CHIP or warp7 or MSI_Primo73
> > > >
> > > >OK thanks for the pointers. I will take a look. I spent quite a bit of
> > > >time on this (it was pretty awful at the start!) but obviously I
> > > >haven't quite nailed it.
> > > 
> > > So I've run some quick tests on F-24 which is at gcc-6 (and it is unlikely
> > > u-boot v2015.07 will be coming to older Fedora versions) and I got the
> > > following u-boot-spl.bin increase for Cubietruck:
> > > 
> > > v2015.05: 19696
> > > master:   19932
> > > 
> > > So if others are seeing some more extreme increase then that is probably
> > > the good old tool-chain problem with not eliminating unused strings.
> > > 
> > > The way to work around this is look at the linker.map, find out which
> > > object files have grown considerably on master, and check if the patches
> > > in one of those files perhaps has caused us to use some const string
> > > in there, where before we were not using any. The problem with the toolchain
> > > bug is that using a single const string in a .o file will make it link
> > > in ALL const strings in the .o file, even the 99 other unused ones.
> > > 
> > > In the past I've hacked around that in e.g. the malloc code, but TBH,
> > > now that the upstream toolchain is fixed I'm not sure if we should
> > > bother with kludging around this.
> > 
> > I am a fan of gcc-6.x (as it saves us space on so many platforms), but
> > with your sunxi hat on, rather than Fedora guy hat on, do you think
> > telling people to just grab gcc-6.x is an OK solution for users?
> 
> If I may chime in with my Debian hat on:
> 
> Debian/unstable has gcc-6.1.1, so for the Debian developers and
> "bleeding edge" users there is no problem.  For users of
> Debian/stable things don't look that good as there probably won't
> be a backport of gcc-6 for Debian/stable and the other "usual"
> source for a comparatively current crosscompiler - crosstool-ng -
> also doesn't provide support for gcc-6 builds (not even in git
> head).
> 
> With Ubuntu the situation is similar: the current (and just
> freshly released) Ubuntu 16.04 doesn't ship gcc-6; the first
> Ubuntu release to ship gcc-6 will be 16.10.
> 
> So the question is: does u-boot mainly address active developers
> or shall it also be easily buildable for end-users.  For the
> former, requiring gcc-6 wouldn't be a problem, but for the
> latter, it most probably would be as things are now.

So, I think we agree then that yes, we need to care about gcc-5.x,
thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160520/cd368642/attachment.sig>