Hi, thanks for your quick reply. On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Steffen Dettmer <steffen.dettmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> The application size increased, exeeded 4 MB (working) and >> finally around 4 MB and I ended up with the linker error >> "relocation truncated to fit: R_ARM_THM_PC22": >> >> relocation truncated to fit: R_ARM_THM_PC22 >> against symbol `_call_via_r4' defined in .text section in >> /tmp/x/lib_gcc_gnu/libgcc.a(_call_via_rX.o) >> ../../../../../myfile.c:238: relocation truncated to fit: R_ARM_THM_PC22 >> against symbol `_call_via_r3' defined in .text section in >> /tmp/x/lib_gcc_gnu/libgcc.a(_call_via_rX.o) >> [more similar errors, depending on my #defines/my code various >> symbols from various source files] > > I note that this is in libgcc.a, which will not be affected by > using -mlong-calls to compile your application. Ahh yes (I assumed the problem is that this _call_via_rX functions are used, instead of some others for long calls). Where can I find more information about compiling options of libgcc.a? (I thought it was compiled as part of gcc building [and thus assumed it would be built with correct compiler options]. Could it be that I used bad limiting options when the arm-elf-gcc was compiled?) >> I searched the internet and read about `trampolines' and the >> general possibility to have small wrapper functions in ARM code >> able to execute very long calls (gigabyte range). >> Compilers/linkers could theoretically automatically use such >> "wrappers". This information is in contrast to the previous one. > > The linker does have support for this. Which version of the > linker are you using? $ gcc -Wl,--version GNU ld version 2.16.1 (does this mean it is from binutils-2.16.1 from June 2005?) is `veneer generation' the correct term for what I called `trampoline'? oki, Steffen
