On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 01:00:06AM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Robert Millan<r...@aybabtu.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:46:29AM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko > > wrote: > >> Why is it still asm? It can be done easily in C. > >> Actually here we have 2 extremes: nice code (C, transform to nice > >> flags (only one shift or 2 conrols and alts)) or small code (asm, > >> crude value). Where we choose the compromise is a question for > >> maintainer, not me. > > > > Nice code, please. We're pressed for space, but not *that* much. > > > > Besides, we can't use this asm code as-is, unless we get word from the > > people who wrote it (Colin wrote most of the patch, but not this). > > > In this case we don't need asm at all.
I didn't look much into this. I thought there was a new BIOS call being introduced? -- 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
