Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:48:58 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: c.jayachandran@gmail.com Cc: mips@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MIPS ldscript Message-ID: <20100203.104858.812628220522969523.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <98a59be81002030917sd5d556fv67a3a76786df1817@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100203.071001.787670930858389487.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100203171930.ed680ebe.ray@dlink.ua> <98a59be81002030917sd5d556fv67a3a76786df1817@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <98a59be81002030917sd5d556fv67a3a76786df1817@mail.gmail.com>
"C. Jayachandran" <c.jayachandran@gmail.com> writes:
: [re-send, seems to have messed up the to/cc on first try]
: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Alexandr Rybalko <ray@dlink.ua> wrote:
: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:10:01 -0700 (MST)
: > "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
: >
: >>> In message: <20100203135457.be65e40e.ray@dlink.ua>
: >>> Alexandr Rybalko <ray@dlink.ua> writes:
: >>> : Have trouble, possible ldscript problem, all executables have .data
: >>> : segment started at 0x10000, so /usr/bin/true have size 70277. Help
: >>> : to resolve problem.
: >>>
: >>> How are you building? Can you send the following:
: > OK
: >
: >
: > No ldd in cross toolchain, so ldd I test on runing MIPS device (BCM5354 DIR-320)
: >
: >
: >>>
: >>> ls -l /usr/bin/true
: >> ls -l true
: > -rwxr-xr-x 1 ray wheel 70277 3 лют 14:11 true
: >
: >>> size /usr/bin/true
: >> size true
: > text data bss dec hex filename
: > 1837 124 20 1981 7bd true
:
: I too see the same executable size. My guess was that this is caused
: by the toolchain setup, the pagesize setting for target seems to be
: 64K, unless I am reading it wrong (contrib/binutils/bfd/elf32-mips.c
: ELF_MAXPAGESIZE)
:
: Don't know if there are any other knobs to control this setting.
Hmmmm, I'll take a look at this as my time permits... I'm not sure if
it is the page size or something else, but I'll look into it...
I'm seeing similar results too now that I'm looking closely at
things. It also explains why my root is like 290MB instead of 192MB
that my x86 trees are...
Of course, I'm gratified that people are complaining about problems
like this. It isn't the sort of thing you gripe about if you are just
casually dabbling with the port :)
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100203.104858.812628220522969523.imp>