Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:37:18 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fails to build sys/i386/boot2 with gcc 4.9 Message-ID: <32F42F43-0AFA-4562-B845-4612D123742E@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7A9A90EA-E052-425E-BE90-9290B0CAB03F@bsdimp.com> References: <CAG=rPVcXPMqifAJvg_-XNWrOUzDLya1UMWW5KMymymyayM25=w@mail.gmail.com> <20683705-0EBA-4B8F-A0CE-9C06B8003BBE@FreeBSD.org> <20150329082734.GA13058@vlakno.cz> <B6DB2849-2985-4658-AD13-E9E99E8BE731@bsdimp.com> <CAG=rPVf5AwjjjLL-xkv%2BbAaX4CHaoB5iwF9nD59GuVc3qGo64g@mail.gmail.com> <7A9A90EA-E052-425E-BE90-9290B0CAB03F@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mar 29, 2015, at 15:56, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >=20 >> On Mar 29, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> wrote:= >>=20 >> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >>=20 >> If we built a UFS1-only boot2, that would fit in the 7.5k we have left >> to play with. We could then build a UFS2-only boot2 that would easily >> fit in the like 32k limit that UFS2 has. >>=20 >> The only reason we went to supporting both was to have something >> universal. Since it requires a reformat to go from UFS1 -> UFS2 we >> wanted the transition to be as smooth as possible so you didn=81ft have >> to add boot blocks into the mix. >>=20 >> Now the only people that use UFS1 are people with really old systems >> that are never going to upgrade, or people building new systems with >> UFS1 because they are space constrained (for whatever reasons that >> we=81fre not going to debate here: they are still real). >>=20 >> In the past 5 years, I have worked on some embedded systems where UFS1 wa= s chosen because of very low memory and disk space requirements. >> So those systems are real and out there. >>=20 >> Just out of curiousity, what is it about newer compilers that cause >> the size of boot2 to increase so much? >>=20 >> Could we do some silly things like removing/reducing the use of printf() >> to save some more bytes, in order to buy us more time, before having >> to rewrite everything? :) >=20 > Removing printf isn=81ft going to save us. It usually compiles to 80-120 b= ytes. >=20 > I think the only sane way forward is boot2.ufs1 an boot2.ufs2 plus maybe > some safety belts in the boot block splatter programs to prevent > brickification. Since the proposal to split up the code by filesystems is on the table, woul= d it make sense to do something similar for zfs? Thanks!=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32F42F43-0AFA-4562-B845-4612D123742E>