Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:19:50 +0200 | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Makefile: Skip reloc overflow issue when COMPILE_TEST enabled |
| |
Am 08.04.2015 um 23:16 schrieb Chen Gang: > On 4/9/15 05:10, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Am 08.04.2015 um 23:05 schrieb Chen Gang: >>> l1_text is at L1_CODE_START (e.g. for bf533, 0xff800000). If the kernel >>> is too big, it may be overwritten, the related issue: >>> >>> LD init/built-in.o >>> init/built-in.o: In function `do_early_param': >>> init/main.c:(.init.text+0xe0): relocation truncated to fit: R_BFIN_PCREL24 against symbol `strcmp' defined in .l1.text section in arch/blackfin/lib/lib.a(strcmp.o) >>> init/main.c:(.init.text+0x10e): relocation truncated to fit: R_BFIN_PCREL24 against symbol `strcmp' defined in .l1.text section in arch/blackfin/lib/lib.a(strcmp.o) >>> init/built-in.o: In function `unknown_bootoption': >>> >>> blackfin is for embedded system, the size limitition is acceptable, so >>> it is not the real world issue, which should be skipped if COMPILE_TEST >>> enabled. >> >> You're again papering over the real issue. >> COMPILE_TEST is only one way to generate a too big kernel. >> The right thing is to blow up and warn the user. >> > > If COMPILE_TEST is not set, the right thing is to blow up and warn the > user. > > But for me, if COMPILE_TEST is set, the right thing is to warn the user > without blowing up (the user already know about it -- he/she only care > about the building test).
How can you be sure that the issue you found is a) worth ignoring b) not solvable? As you paper of it by adding an #ifdef COMPILE_TEST which is very hacky IMHO.
Thanks, //richard
| |