[pups] 2BSD build problem - unix.o not too big

[Steven M. Schultz]

> From: "Ian King" <iking at killthewabbit.org>
> I'm building a 2.11BSD kernel on my 11/73 (so I can include the networking
> code and put my machine on the LAN!), and I'm seeing the error "too big for
> type 431".  Through the wonders of Google, I saw your discussion of this
> error and followed your advice (from 1996!).  However, when I ask 'size

	I'd have, up to now, sworn that the overlay setup was in the 
	documentation (one of the appendices) but it could well be that it's
	still off in a file somewhere in the mess I call my filesystem ;)

> unix.o', I get a size comfortably within the limits for base - 50112, well
> below the 57344 you cite.  None of the overlays exceeds 8192, and the 'total
> text' figure is well below your example, too.  FWIW, I did a 'naive build'

	Do you have any 0 length overlays?   There can't be any gaps in the
	overlay structure.

	For example, this is legal:

		overlays: 8128,7552,8000,7296,8192,7424,5824,6784,3520

	but this is not:
		
		overlays: 8128,7552,8000,7296,8192,0,5824,6784,3520

> first, copying GENERIC and changing a few parameters; after seeing the error
> 'text segment too big' I went through the config file with a little more
> thought and eliminated drivers I clearly didn't need (I don't have RL01/02s,

	You might need to go thru the Makefile too.  Good idea to eliminate
	drivers you don't have (save their D-space requirements) but that
	can create empty overlays and that does not work.

> for instance).  Then I started getting this error.  I did a 'make clean'
> just to be sure, but still make gives me the 'too big for type 431' error.
> (Yes, I RTFM on ld.)

	Hmmm, patch level 431 is recent enough I'd have thought to avoid
	a 'ld' problem (current is 444 but nothing recently has touched
	ld).

	What is the output from 'size unix.o'?

	Cheers,
	Steven Schultz