[oe] [PATCH 0/5] Misc updates for EZX bits in OE

[Antonio Ospite]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:17:24 +0100
Antonio Ospite <ospite at studenti.unina.it> wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:39:00 -0700
> Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On (25/03/10 18:19), Antonio Ospite wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > here are some updates for EZX bits in OE.
> > > 
> > > With these changes we have a working image to experiment with ts27010mux
> > > driver and ezxd, no fso support yet. Tested on Motorola A780.
> > > 
> > > Note that although ezx-gen-blob builds fine now, it seems to have issues with
> > > GCC 4.4: the binary size is about 300KiB instead of the expected 64KiB, if
> > > anyone has a clue please let me know.
> > 
> > I can help you here. If you can give me the two images with symbols and
> > your linking script it uses. Secondly are you using same binutils/ld in
> > both cases ?
> >
> 
> Here are more details:
> A gcc-4.1.2 toolchain[1] produces the expected result,
> the current gcc-4.4.2 toolchain[2] from 'minimal' distro does not.
>

Hi Khem, would you be able to take a look at this?
The attachments I sent in the old mail are still available here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded/31488/focus=31520

Thanks,
   Antonio

> I am using the very ld the toolchain provides, so I they are
> different, and I noted than the 4.4.2 one gives this warning:
> .../arm-oe-linux-gnueabi/bin/ld:
> warning: section `.bss' type changed to PROGBITS
> 
> The problem seems to rise during linking indeed, the size difference
> of .o files produced by the two toolchains is ~ 3 KiB overall, it does
> not seem to justify the bump I have after linking to more than 200KiB.
> 
> I am attaching here the two binaries before stripping, but also some
> scripts to easily recreate the entire scenario, since I am not sure of
> what you exactly need to find out what's happening.
> The command used for linking is attached as well.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Antonio
> 

-- 
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it

PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20100415/28524cb3/attachment-0002.sig>