On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 18:50 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: > Of course, another way to go could be to allow the bootloader part of > GRUB to be built in PE format: it would "just" be a matter of writing > the PE counterparts to kern/elf.c and abstracting kern/dl.c "a > bit" (i.e. a lot of work). The downside to this, apart from the > unspecified work required, is that Windows-built i386-pc-pe modules are > no longer compatible with Linux-built i386-pc-elf. Not a showstopper, > but might require a sober thinking. As I have a lot of free time right > now, I'll try to think whether it's possible or not.
I think it's important to have a consistent format for modules. > > Maybe we could treat ELF header like a multiboot header? That means > > that we write the header fields in the assembly language, substitute the > > necessary variables and ask objcopy to make a raw binary that would > > actually be an ELF file? > As far as I understand the ELF format, this would be too complex to get > right: there's a lot of info in there. If ELF is too complex to write manually, we can use another format everywhere. It could be something GRUB specific. But I think we should try to use ELF, as it's widespread and extensible. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
