From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-71318-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12035 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2011 19:40:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 11934 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2011 19:40:10 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f169.google.com) (74.125.82.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:39:55 +0000
Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so1065257wyf.0        for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.65.142 with SMTP id f14mr473931wed.2.1303328394115; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.30.67 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik6TcHnFHvV00ZYCrwOPeNSbAFGyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTik6TcHnFHvV00ZYCrwOPeNSbAFGyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anitha Boyapati <anitha.boyapati@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:40:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=F4s1Gv_eA+zr_arJEn8jUTB+cUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: VMA and LMA calculation when section alignment is non null
To: binutils@sourceware.org
Cc: Anitha Boyapati <anitha.boyapati@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00299.txt.bz2

On 20 April 2011 23:57, Anitha Boyapati <anitha.boyapati@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like know more about LMA/VMA calculations.=A0 Here is a small lin=
ker script (trimmed to relevant portions)
>
> =A0MEMORY
> {
> =A0=A0=A0 FLASH (rxai!w) : ORIGIN =3D 0x80000000, LENGTH =3D 512K
> }
> SECTIONS
> {
> =A0 .mysec1_os=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 :
> =A0 {
> =A0=A0=A0 *(.mysec1)
> =A0 } >FLASH AT>FLASH
> =A0 .text_os=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 :
> =A0 {
> =A0=A0=A0 *(.text .text.* )
> =A0 } > FLASH AT>FLASH
> }
>
> It turns out that for some small application which uses .balign 8, the VM=
A and LMA of .text_os differs. I was debugging this when I hit the function=
 lang_size_sections_1() from ldlang.c. As far as I understand VMA is cacula=
ted using os->bfd_section->alignment_power which is then set using bfd_set_=
section_vma(). This macro sets both lma and vma to some valid value.
>
> Now for lma processing, os->section_alignment is being used. What is the =
difference between os->bfd_section->alignment_power and os->section_alignme=
nt ? The values are different (It is=A03 for former and -1 for latter). Ple=
ase help.
> ...
> =A0if (os->section_alignment !=3D -1)
> =A0=A0 lma =3D align_power (lma, os->section_alignment);
> ...

Hi again.

I am glad I found a relevant thread describing the exact problem
I am facing.

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-12/msg00477.html

The given patch solves my issue too. (Sorry I havent referred to the
binutils version I am using. It is 2.20.1). Now my next question :
Since the patch was submitted after binutils 2.21 release, I am assuming th=
at
no release of binutils has this patch included.

I would still appreciate anyone letting me know the difference between
os->bfd_section->alignment_power and os->section_alignment

Thanks
Anitha