RFC: PowerPC bsp_specs Clean Up Question

[Joel Sherrill]

On Dec 21, 2017 1:16 AM, "Chris Johns" <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:

On 21/12/17 6:13 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 12/12/17 02:54, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Many of the PowerPC BSPs uses a shared linker script. That's good.
>> Unfortunately, there is variation in the start symbol and the use of a
"-u"
>> (e.g. undefined) symbol in the bsp_specs. I had initially thought I
would add
>> the start symbol and any use of -u to the linkcmds (EXTERN). But now I am
>> thinking that due to use of shared linker scripts and inconsistencies,
some
>> BSPs are better off if I add command line arguments to the linking stage.
>>
>> Also some use motld_start.o as the start file which is in conflict with
other
>> BSPs using the same linker script.
>>
>> This is the fragment in bsp_specs I am trying to eliminate or
standardize:
>>
>> -e __rtems_entry_point -u __vectors motld_start.o%s
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Why don't we use _start for all entry points and start.o for all start
files?
>

+1


I'm not opposed to this but it requires even more delicate editing that I
can't easily test.

We can get rid of bsp_specs and do this largely at the same time. The
specifications in GCC will have to be tinkered with to address what's left
in bsp_specs so the specs can do this.

But I haven't figured out precisely what to do with gcc at this point.


Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20171221/1c2cfd81/attachment-0002.html>