On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Robert Millan<r...@aybabtu.com> wrote: > 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? > In first version of patch yes but in the second version just checks a value in memory
-- 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
