On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Pavel Roskin <pro...@gnu.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 21:33 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 03:08:19PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > > On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 20:50 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > > > > Does anyone know why do we align ELF targets? When I did the > coreboot port, > > > > the ELF part was based on existing Ieee1275 code, so I guess I just > mimicked > > > > it. Is there some issue with non-i386 CPUs or with some Ieee1275 > > > > implementations that makes this alignment a requirement? > > > > > > It was a hack for PowerPC openfirmware. I don't know why it was > needed. > > > I didn't have time and desire to debug openfirmware to find out what it > > > wants. > > > > Is the hack you're referring to GRUB_MOD_GAP, GRUB_MOD_ALIGN or both? > > I'm referring to GRUB_MOD_GAP. > > > Btw, I suspect GRUB_MOD_GAP might be related to the modules overlapping > with > > the BSS because of a firmware loader bug. Is there a correlation between > > the needed GRUB_MOD_GAP and the BSS size? > > I don't see any correlation. > > I made 3 images with the gap of 0x4000, 0x8000 and 0xc000. Then I added > an uninitialized array to the kernel, 0x4000 bytes long, and made > another 3 images with the same gap sizes. The images with the 0x4000 > gap don't boot and the images with the gap sized 0x8000 and 0xc000 boot > regardless of the array. Stupid question but have you ensured/checked that this array isn't optimized out? > > > That's PowerMac G3 "Blue and White". > > -- > Regards, > Pavel Roskin > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel > -- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
