On Wed, May 24, 2023, at 03:29, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 17:22:20 PDT (-0700), rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 5/23/23 06:07, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>> On 23/05/2023 04:28, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/23 03:42, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>>>>>> /opt/crosstool/gcc-12.2.0-nolibc/riscv64-linux/bin/riscv64-linux-ld: section .data LMA [000000000041a000,00000000075bffd7] overlaps section .text LMA [00000000000f09d4,00000000033562ab]
>>>>>>> /opt/crosstool/gcc-12.2.0-nolibc/riscv64-linux/bin/riscv64-linux-ld: section .init.pi.text LMA [00000000033562ac,0000000003359137] overlaps section .data LMA [000000000041a000,00000000075bffd7]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll check this one too which seems to be related to kernel/pi introduction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Bjorn: this is caused by XIP_KERNEL, which is known to have limited size, hence the overlap, so no fix for this one. Is there a way to exclude this config from randconfig?
>>>> Does this mean exclude XIP_KERNEL or something else from randconfigs?
>>>
>>>
>>> I meant excluding XIP_KERNEL from randconfigs: it has very strict constraints regarding what can/can't be enabled then it needs human intervention to make sure the error above does not happen. So I would not bother testing this in randconfigs if possible.
>>
>> I can exclude it from my randconfig builds, but I don't know of a way to exclude it from randconfig builds in general (i.e., for everyone).
>
> Arnd had suggested a trick related to menus that would result in
> randconfig never enabling some config. It'd suggested for
> CONFIG_NONPORTABLE, but we didn't use it because it'd reduce randconfig
> coverage.
>
> Maybe we should add a CONFIG_VERYSPECIAL of some sort and hide things
> like XIP behind it (maybe M-mode too)?
I usually add 'depends on !COMPILE_TEST', that excludes it from most
build bots.
Arnd
