Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:40:38 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, Alexander@Leidinger.net Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/boot/i386/boot2 boot2.c Message-ID: <XFMail.20021217124038.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20021217.103409.105683273.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17-Dec-2002 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20021217170822.0cb1b03b.Alexander@Leidinger.net> > Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> writes: >: On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:55:15 +0100 >: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: >: >: > than before (ideally the #if 1 should be #if __GCC). >: >: Ooops... it's "__GNUC__" off course. > > I'm about to commit boot2 changes to get both UFS1 and UFS2 into 8k. > Peter has more extensive changes than mine (and mine are based on his > and some suggestions from Ian), but they are more risky. I'll see > about ifdefing this, but I can't guarantee that icc will compile > things under 8k after the changes. Try it and let me know. We could shave a lot of room off of boot2 by having it be a real-mode application instead of a protected mode one. This would allow us to ditch all of BTX. However, we would either need to use a C compiler that can generate real-mode code (gcc can't AFAIK) or we need to write it all in assembly. I'd really like to avoid the latter if at all possible. Any chance that gcc might could be tweaked to add a real-mode target? -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20021217124038.jhb>