[coreboot] [v3] r1129 makes bootblock too big

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Fri Feb 13 01:35:16 CET 2009


On 13.02.2009 01:27, ron minnich wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Ronald Hoogenboom <ronald at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>   
>> [coreboot-v3]$ objdump -t build/stage0-prefixed.o | awk '/\.c$/{print
>> $6}' | sort -u
>> stage0_clog2.c
>> stage0_console.c
>> stage0_delay.c
>>     
>
> almost certainly.
>   
>> stage0_dualcore_id.c
>> stage0_get_nodes.c
>> stage0_incoherent_ht_chain.c
>>     
>
> probably.
>
>   
>> stage0_lar.c
>> stage0_libstage1.c
>> stage0_lzma.c
>> stage0_mc146818rtc.c
>> stage0_mem.c
>> stage0_option_table.c
>> stage0_pci_ops_conf1.c
>>     
>
> yes
>
>   
>> stage0_pnp_raw.c
>> stage0_post_code.c
>> stage0_resourcemap.c
>> stage0_serial.c
>>     
>
> I think so.
>
>   
>> stage0_stage1.c
>> stage0_stage1_enable_rom.c
>> stage0_stage1_mtrr.c
>> stage0_stage1_smbus.c
>> stage0_string.c
>> stage0_uart8250.c
>> stage0_udelay_io.c
>> stage0_vsprintf.c
>> stage0_vtxprintf.c
>>
>> Is ALL this stuff actually needed in stage0???
>>     
>
> You can look some more, but this stuff may be hard to remove. I tried.
>   

If you don't need backtraces or similar stuff, you can try to enable
combined compilation. Depending on your compiler and the selected
coreboot features, saving up to 20% executable size may be possible.

(I'm not sure whether all of my combined compilation patches were
merged, so your results may vary.)


Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/





More information about the coreboot mailing list