| Message ID | B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB5930247AFD2A0@dbde02.ent.ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 30.11.2010 15:25, Premi, Sanjeev wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de >> [mailto:u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Premi, Sanjeev >> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:38 PM >> To: Wolfgang Denk >> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain >> > > [snip]...[snip] > >>>> >>>> I am process of downloading the 2009q3 version from >>> codesourcery >>>> Albert mentioned he is using it. Are you on the same >> version as >>>> well? >>> >>> No, I'm using ELDk 4.2 >> >> [sp] Okay, so I downloaded both 2009-q3 and 2010.09-50 versions of the >> Codesourcery Lite edition. >> >> There is no difference in the observations between >> 2009q3 and 2010q1. >> > [sp] I have been able to narrow down the problem to one variable defined > in board/ti/evm.c - omap3_evm_version - declared as: > static u8 omap3_evm_version; > > Any attempt to assign value this variable in omap3_evm_get_revision() > leads to the linker error I noted with Codesourcery 2010q1-202. > > With 2009q1-203, definition of variable itself is sufficient to cause > the linker error. Maybe CCing Codesourcery's mailing list http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/arm-gnu-discuss/maillist.html could help, too? At least it's worth a try? Dirk > I have pasted a patch below that constructs the testcase I have created > to explain these observations: > 1) When macros both _EXCLUDE_ME_1 and _EXCLUDE_ME_2 are undefined, the > problem is - as described. > > 2) When only macro _EXCLUDE_ME_1 is defined, the compilation succeeds > with Codesourcery 2010q1-202; but fails with 2009q1-203. > > 3) When both macros _EXCLUDE_ME_1 and _EXCLUDE_ME_2 are defined, the > compilation succeeds with both codesourcery versions. > > OMAP3EVM is obviously not the only file using statics. I see their usage > in many files including OMAP3Beagle as well - one reason I did not even > suspect this to be problem. > > I haven't yet been able to conclude the cause of failure - but appears > to be related to handling of static variables across compiler versions. > Still need to investigate further on this... > > Board revision needs to be detected early during initialization. How is > this handled for other boards? (I am currently trying to browse non-omap > boards for pointers). Any quick suggestions would be helpful. > > [patch] > diff --git a/board/ti/evm/evm.c b/board/ti/evm/evm.c > index 09d14f7..e766355 100644 > --- a/board/ti/evm/evm.c > +++ b/board/ti/evm/evm.c > @@ -37,15 +37,30 @@ > #include<asm/mach-types.h> > #include "evm.h" > > +/* #define _EXCLUDE_ME_1 */ /* Uncomment - works with 2010q1 only */ > +/* #define _EXCLUDE_ME_2 */ /* Uncomment - works with 2009q3 as well */ > + > +#if !defined(_EXCLUDE_ME_2) > static u8 omap3_evm_version; > +#endif > > u8 get_omap3_evm_rev(void) > { > +#ifdef _EXCLUDE_ME_2 > + return OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_1; /* Debugging: Don't use the variable */ > +#else > return omap3_evm_version; > +#endif > + > } > > static void omap3_evm_get_revision(void) > { > +#ifdef _EXCLUDE_ME_COMPLETELY_ > + /* > + * Original code in the function is being removed completely to reduce > + * scope of the debug exercise. > + */ > #if defined(CONFIG_CMD_NET) > /* > * Board revision can be ascertained only by identifying > @@ -80,6 +95,20 @@ static void omap3_evm_get_revision(void) > omap3_evm_version = OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_2; > #endif > #endif /* CONFIG_CMD_NET */ > + > +#else > + /* > + * Dummy implementation of function just for testing > + */ > + > +#if !defined(_EXCLUDE_ME_1)&& !defined(_EXCLUDE_ME_2) > + /* > + * Dummy assignment just for testing > + */ > + omap3_evm_version = OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_2; > +#endif > + > +#endif /* _EXCLUDE_ME_COMPLETELY_ */ > } > > #ifdef CONFIG_USB_OMAP3 > [/patch] > > [snip] > Removed my observations for Codesourcery 2010.09-50. > Did not get chance to look at them so far... > [/snip] > > Best regards, > Sanjeev > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dirk Behme [mailto:dirk.behme@googlemail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:15 PM > To: Premi, Sanjeev > Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain > > On 30.11.2010 15:25, Premi, Sanjeev wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de > >> [mailto:u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Premi, Sanjeev > >> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:38 PM > >> To: Wolfgang Denk > >> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de > >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain > >> > > > > [snip]...[snip] > > > >>>> > >>>> I am process of downloading the 2009q3 version from > >>> codesourcery > >>>> Albert mentioned he is using it. Are you on the same > >> version as > >>>> well? > >>> > >>> No, I'm using ELDk 4.2 > >> > >> [sp] Okay, so I downloaded both 2009-q3 and 2010.09-50 > versions of the > >> Codesourcery Lite edition. > >> > >> There is no difference in the observations between > >> 2009q3 and 2010q1. > >> > > [sp] I have been able to narrow down the problem to one > variable defined > > in board/ti/evm.c - omap3_evm_version - declared as: > > static u8 omap3_evm_version; > > > > Any attempt to assign value this variable in > omap3_evm_get_revision() > > leads to the linker error I noted with Codesourcery > 2010q1-202. > > > > With 2009q1-203, definition of variable itself is > sufficient to cause > > the linker error. > > Maybe CCing Codesourcery's mailing list > > http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/arm-gnu-discuss/maillist.html > > could help, too? At least it's worth a try? I was thinking of same - only after we understand if there isn't something we are, possibly, missing in changes to linker scripts. > > Dirk > > > I have pasted a patch below that constructs the > testcase I have created > > to explain these observations: > > 1) When macros both _EXCLUDE_ME_1 and _EXCLUDE_ME_2 > are undefined, the > > problem is - as described. > > > > 2) When only macro _EXCLUDE_ME_1 is defined, the > compilation succeeds > > with Codesourcery 2010q1-202; but fails with 2009q1-203. > > > > 3) When both macros _EXCLUDE_ME_1 and _EXCLUDE_ME_2 > are defined, the > > compilation succeeds with both codesourcery versions. > > > > OMAP3EVM is obviously not the only file using > statics. I see their usage > > in many files including OMAP3Beagle as well - one > reason I did not even > > suspect this to be problem. > > > > I haven't yet been able to conclude the cause of > failure - but appears > > to be related to handling of static variables across > compiler versions. > > Still need to investigate further on this... > > > > Board revision needs to be detected early during > initialization. How is > > this handled for other boards? (I am currently trying > to browse non-omap > > boards for pointers). Any quick suggestions would be helpful. > > > > [patch] > > diff --git a/board/ti/evm/evm.c b/board/ti/evm/evm.c > > index 09d14f7..e766355 100644 > > --- a/board/ti/evm/evm.c > > +++ b/board/ti/evm/evm.c > > @@ -37,15 +37,30 @@ > > #include<asm/mach-types.h> > > #include "evm.h" > > > > +/* #define _EXCLUDE_ME_1 */ /* Uncomment - works > with 2010q1 only */ > > +/* #define _EXCLUDE_ME_2 */ /* Uncomment - works > with 2009q3 as well */ > > + > > +#if !defined(_EXCLUDE_ME_2) > > static u8 omap3_evm_version; > > +#endif > > > > u8 get_omap3_evm_rev(void) > > { > > +#ifdef _EXCLUDE_ME_2 > > + return OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_1; /* Debugging: Don't use > the variable */ > > +#else > > return omap3_evm_version; > > +#endif > > + > > } > > > > static void omap3_evm_get_revision(void) > > { > > +#ifdef _EXCLUDE_ME_COMPLETELY_ > > + /* > > + * Original code in the function is being removed > completely to reduce > > + * scope of the debug exercise. > > + */ > > #if defined(CONFIG_CMD_NET) > > /* > > * Board revision can be ascertained only by identifying > > @@ -80,6 +95,20 @@ static void omap3_evm_get_revision(void) > > omap3_evm_version = OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_2; > > #endif > > #endif /* CONFIG_CMD_NET */ > > + > > +#else > > + /* > > + * Dummy implementation of function just for testing > > + */ > > + > > +#if !defined(_EXCLUDE_ME_1)&& !defined(_EXCLUDE_ME_2) > > + /* > > + * Dummy assignment just for testing > > + */ > > + omap3_evm_version = OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_2; > > +#endif > > + > > +#endif /* _EXCLUDE_ME_COMPLETELY_ */ > > } > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_USB_OMAP3 > > [/patch] > > > > [snip] > > Removed my observations for Codesourcery 2010.09-50. > > Did not get chance to look at them so far... > > [/snip] > > > > Best regards, > > Sanjeev > > _______________________________________________ > > U-Boot mailing list > > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > > > >
> -----Original Message----- > From: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de > [mailto:u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Premi, Sanjeev > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:56 PM > To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de > > [mailto:u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Premi, Sanjeev > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:38 PM > > To: Wolfgang Denk > > Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain > > > > [snip]...[snip] > > > > > > > > > I am process of downloading the 2009q3 version from > > > codesourcery > > > > Albert mentioned he is using it. Are you on the same > > version as > > > > well? > > > > > > No, I'm using ELDk 4.2 > > > > [sp] Okay, so I downloaded both 2009-q3 and 2010.09-50 > versions of the > > Codesourcery Lite edition. > > > > There is no difference in the observations between > > 2009q3 and 2010q1. > > [snip]...[snip] There were some good patches posted recently esp the bss_debug tool and fix for ARM relocation from Andreas. Applied them in order to get more information. In addition, added print indicating the function being called in for (init_funcptr= ....) loop within board_init_f(). Also added a print in the function omap3_evm_get_revision() just to see if it ever gets called in due to incorrect sequencing. I could confirm that functions in init_sequence[] are called and omap3_evm_get_revision() is not called in this sequence. When everything failed, I went back to the u-boot.lds and changed the way overlay is defined. ...AND PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE SOLVED! I can now compile u-boot with both 2009q1 and 2010q1 without any error. (yet to try with 2010.09) To verify, I wanted to do a before-and-after comparison but couldn't have done for the omap3_evm - used omap3_beagle instead. I haven't yet tried running the binary on the board; but here are top level observations: 1) .bss and .rel.dyn are starting at same address. 2) The size of .rodata has increased. (Why? not yet spent time on?) Sending the patch in next few mins: ~sanjeev (Comparison: "<before" and ">after") 753c753 < .rodata 0x80035578 0x9f38 --- > .rodata 0x80035578 0x9f46 757c757 < .rodata 0x8003571c 0xbc arch/arm/lib/libarm.o --- === [contents deleted] === < .u_boot_cmd 0x80041aac 0x658 --- > .u_boot_cmd 0x80041abc 0x658 === [contents deleted] === 967,968c967,973 < .rel.dyn 0x80042104 0x5af0 < 0x80042104 __rel_dyn_start = . --- > .dynsym 0x80042114 0xa0 > 0x80042114 __dynsym_start = . > *(.dynsym) > .dynsym 0x80042114 0xa0 arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.o > > .rel.dyn 0x800421b4 0x5af0 > 0x800421b4 __rel_dyn_start = . === [contents deleted] === 984,985c986,987 < .bss 0x80042104 0x31ba8 < 0x80042104 __bss_start = . --- > .bss 0x800421b4 0x31bb4 load address 0x80047ca4 > 0x80073d68 __bss_start = . === [contents deleted] === < .dynbss 0x80073cac 0x0 --- > .dynbss 0x80073d68 0x0 load address 0x80079858
Le 01/12/2010 15:56, Premi, Sanjeev a écrit : > When everything failed, I went back to the u-boot.lds and > changed the way overlay is defined. > > ...AND PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE SOLVED! This most probably means some of the code running before relocation uses BSS; see below. > I can now compile u-boot with both 2009q1 and 2010q1 without > any error. (yet to try with 2010.09) > > To verify, I wanted to do a before-and-after comparison but > couldn't have done for the omap3_evm - used omap3_beagle instead. > > I haven't yet tried running the binary on the board; but here > are top level observations: > > 1) .bss and .rel.dyn are starting at same address. This is normal and should not have any negative impact as long as code that runs before relocation does not access BSS -- and it should not, since BSS only exists after relocation. > 2) The size of .rodata has increased. (Why? not yet spent time on?) Weird. Can you provide all necessary info for duplicating these two builds? > Sending the patch in next few mins: If that's a patch to remove the overlay in the .lds, it's a Nak from me already. > ~sanjeev Amicalement,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud@free.fr] > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:33 PM > To: Premi, Sanjeev > Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Wolfgang Denk > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Build failures with older toolchain > > Le 01/12/2010 15:56, Premi, Sanjeev a écrit : > > > When everything failed, I went back to the u-boot.lds and > > changed the way overlay is defined. > > > > ...AND PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE SOLVED! > > This most probably means some of the code running before > relocation uses > BSS; see below. > > > I can now compile u-boot with both 2009q1 and 2010q1 without > > any error. (yet to try with 2010.09) > > > > To verify, I wanted to do a before-and-after comparison but > > couldn't have done for the omap3_evm - used omap3_beagle instead. > > > > I haven't yet tried running the binary on the board; but here > > are top level observations: > > > > 1) .bss and .rel.dyn are starting at same address. > > This is normal and should not have any negative impact as > long as code > that runs before relocation does not access BSS -- and it should not, > since BSS only exists after relocation. [sp] Yes. This is what I wanted to confirm to ensure that relocation isn't breaking after the changes. In a way it was my testcase to see that I get similar map for omap3_beagle before and after making changes. > > > 2) The size of .rodata has increased. (Why? not yet spent time on?) > > Weird. Can you provide all necessary info for duplicating > these two builds? > > > Sending the patch in next few mins: > > If that's a patch to remove the overlay in the .lds, it's a > Nak from me > already. [sp] No. I am not removing relocation. Do look at the patch. I just sent from my Linux box.. > > > ~sanjeev > > Amicalement, > -- > Albert. >
diff --git a/board/ti/evm/evm.c b/board/ti/evm/evm.c index 09d14f7..e766355 100644 --- a/board/ti/evm/evm.c +++ b/board/ti/evm/evm.c @@ -37,15 +37,30 @@ #include <asm/mach-types.h> #include "evm.h" +/* #define _EXCLUDE_ME_1 */ /* Uncomment - works with 2010q1 only */ +/* #define _EXCLUDE_ME_2 */ /* Uncomment - works with 2009q3 as well */ + +#if !defined(_EXCLUDE_ME_2) static u8 omap3_evm_version; +#endif u8 get_omap3_evm_rev(void) { +#ifdef _EXCLUDE_ME_2 + return OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_1; /* Debugging: Don't use the variable */ +#else return omap3_evm_version; +#endif + } static void omap3_evm_get_revision(void) { +#ifdef _EXCLUDE_ME_COMPLETELY_ + /* + * Original code in the function is being removed completely to reduce + * scope of the debug exercise. + */ #if defined(CONFIG_CMD_NET) /* * Board revision can be ascertained only by identifying @@ -80,6 +95,20 @@ static void omap3_evm_get_revision(void) omap3_evm_version = OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_2; #endif #endif /* CONFIG_CMD_NET */ + +#else + /* + * Dummy implementation of function just for testing + */ + +#if !defined(_EXCLUDE_ME_1) && !defined(_EXCLUDE_ME_2) + /* + * Dummy assignment just for testing + */ + omap3_evm_version = OMAP3EVM_BOARD_GEN_2; +#endif + +#endif /* _EXCLUDE_ME_COMPLETELY_ */ } #ifdef CONFIG_USB_OMAP3