Quoting Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 22:42 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > On Wednesday 15 November 2006 19:42, Hollis Blanchard wrote: [...] > > > I don't think it would be a big deal to drop a.out as well; I don't know > > > of any modern OS that uses these, and anyways kernel builds are special. > > > However (and I don't know how reasonable this is), Mac OS X's toolchain > > > will build only Mach-O binaries, so one would be unable to build a > > > kernel that GRUB could load. We could require a Mach-O loader in that > > > case, but I will admit that the "a.out hack" multiboot header fields > > > simplify this problem. > > > > Never drop the a.out kludge. This flexibility is one of the advantages in > > Multiboot. Note that GRUB itself uses this feature. > > I still would like an improvement in the kernel->GRUB communication. > What about reusing the tags structure? For example: > > multiboot_header: > .long MAGIC > .long MULTIBOOT_TAG_START [...] > .long MULTIBOOT_TAG_LOADADDR ; .long 12 ; .long _start > .long MULTIBOOT_TAG_ENTRYADDR ; .long 12 ; .long main > .long MULTIBOOT_TAG_END ; .long 8 > etc? > > A cpp macro or two could make that a little more convenient. > > The fact that the START tag requires the number of tags and number of > bytes is inconvenient here. Do we really need that? Why not just: > > while (tag->key != MULTIBOOT_TAG_END) > process_tag(tag); I really like such tags structure. Tags structure are *very* flexible: can be easily extended without breaking backward compatibility.
Tristan. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
