linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.26-gitX: insane number of section headers

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.26-gitX: insane number of section headers
From: Manuel Lauss <mano@roarinelk.homelinux.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:28:05 +0200
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20080716110848.GB8206@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20080716075246.GA3184@roarinelk.homelinux.net> <20080716081532.GB3184@roarinelk.homelinux.net> <20080716105927.GA8206@linux-mips.org> <20080716110357.GA5093@roarinelk.homelinux.net> <20080716110848.GB8206@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:08:48PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:03:57PM +0200, Manuel Lauss wrote:
> 
> > > I consider that an experimental commit.  It's meant to solve the problems
> > > we're having on a few very large compilation units with the limited length
> > > of branches.  But if the cure turns out to be worse than the illness I'm
> > > ready to pull it again.
> > 
> > If it fixes bugs for people, then by all means leave it in.  I was just
> > curious because my self-written bootloader complained about it.
> 
> I wonder why your bootloader cares about sections.  Normally a bootloader
> only ever should think about segments and the number of segments the
> sections are getting mapped to should be unchanged by my patch.

It doesn't -- I just thought that if the number ever gets bigger than what
used to be the norm in alchemy-land then a) flash is erased, or b) something
broke.

 
> > Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> Immer doch :-)

Vielen Dank!

Manuel Lauss

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>