On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:08:23PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Sat, 2009-06-27 at 01:57 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 06:26:57PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > > --- a/include/grub/elf.h > > > +++ b/include/grub/elf.h > > > @@ -2330,4 +2330,48 @@ typedef Elf32_Addr Elf32_Conflict; > > > > > > #define R_X86_64_NUM 24 > > > > > > +#ifndef DEFAULT_ELF_BITS > > > +#define DEFAULT_ELF_BITS (8 * GRUB_TARGET_SIZEOF_VOID_P) > > > +#endif > > > > Nice trick. But it's not ELF-specific, so why not put it in the > > same header that defines GRUB_TARGET_SIZEOF_VOID_P ? (with a different > > name of course) > > Good idea! Now it's GRUB_TARGET_WORDSIZE. The first patch has been > committed.
Ok but note that word size == pointer size is not always true. In fact I'm working on a project where it isn't :-) (if you're curious: https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?9437) > The second patch should probably go after the qemu patch. Actually, the qemu port won't work without the second patch. I just merged it with mine and made a joint commit (ROM + qemu). -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
