Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:54:45 -0500 From: Chris Csanady <ccsanady@friley585.res.iastate.edu> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ELF kernels: When? Message-ID: <199804221354.IAA02372@friley585.res.iastate.edu> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:59:28 %2B0800." <199804220959.RAA05222@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>The real problems are: >- The bootblocks do not load the ELF symbol table, so DDB can't see it. >- DDB doesn't understand the ELF symbol tables yet anyway. >- the bootblocks have *zero* bytes free at present. There is ELF load code >available, but you have to disable BAD144 to get it to fit. Restructuring >the code so that the #ifdefs are not too messy tips the bootblocks over >the limit by a few bytes. >- The loader is quite simple, it pulls in the text and data LOAD sections, >without any of the section headers etc. Those section headers and string >tables are needed to do proper runtime linking via link_elf.c. So, does anyone know enough about bootblocks to look at integrating NetBSD's? They have done a significant amount of work in this area it seems, and they already have a two-stage design. Trying to squeeze every last bit out of the current blocks seems futile.. Are there any arguments against doing this? Chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804221354.IAA02372>