Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:50:48 -0800
From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: ia64@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Help needed cleaning up sys/boot/{efi,ia64}/ makefiles
Message-ID: <20040212055048.GA2975@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
In-Reply-To: <20040211142549.GA52347@FreeBSD.org.ua>
References: <20040211142549.GA52347@FreeBSD.org.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 04:25:49PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > With my patch, I get a slightly different "loader.sym" binary, and > this is due to linking, i.e., all intermediate objects are the same. Not quite. efi/libefi/pal.o is different. The difference is harmless and is caused by picking up asm.h from a different place (without the patch we get it from machine/asm.h, with the patch we get it from /usr/include/machine/asm.h). The object file contains the name of the header file. Anyway, I cannot reproduce what you're seeing. The differences I get are irrelevant (like timestamps or padding). > So I have a few questions: > > - Why the hell removing -M from linker flags (both in unpatched and > patched versions of makefiles) seems to affect the loader.sym binary? Are you sure this is what's going on? I don't see what you're seeing. The use of -M does not affect the output, AFAICT. > - Is it safe to commit my patch? Can someone please run-test it? Yes. I tested it. > - Is there a reason why libski is built with -g? Is it safe to > remove it? I think the reason is that ski uses the debug information, which helped with the porting. It safe to remove it. > - What is the reason that we cannot strip the skiload binary? (A > slightly more verbose explanation than the below would be nice.) > > : revision 1.12 > : date: 2003/11/09 06:53:37; author: marcel; state: Exp; lines: +1 -0 > : Do not strip skiload when installed. The stripped binary does not load > : in the simulator. See below. > - What is the reason that we cannot strip the boot.efi binary? (A > slightly more verbose explanation than the below would be nice.) > > : revision 1.17 > : date: 2002/04/07 04:27:50; author: peter; state: Exp; lines: +1 -0 > : We must not let install(1) strip loader.efi when installing it, or the > : resulting binary will be damaged and no longer work. I think the problem is related to the fact that both the ski loader and the EFI loader are not what you call regular programs and that strip may be buggy in this regard. I haven't actually tried to nail it down, but I know binutils has bugs. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040212055048.GA2975>