>>
>> Compil and work on OSX.
>>
>> Is it ok to commit it ?
>
> However, on our side, I'm not satisfied at all with accomodating to arbitrary
> limitations like this one. This seems like a slippery slope. If we do it
> now, what's the next one?
I agree that we shouldn't support a compiler if it requires a major
inconvenience for GNU, GNU/* developers. However I also think it has
to be decided on case-by-case basis. In this particular case I believe
that using
/* Enter Linux. */
asm volatile ("xorl %%ebx, %%ebx\n"
"jmp *%1" : : "S" (real_mode_mem), "a" (params->code32_start));
is of any trouble.
>
> It's much easier to make official GCC a build requirement. People hacking
> on GRUB source, or distributors (e.g. Fink) should have no problem with a
> dependency on GCC.
>
It won't do a lot of difference for people really wanting to compile
GRUB. However it makes entry barrier higher. I know that primary goal
of GNU is to provide freedom to freedom-aware people and that users of
proprietary OSes usually don't care about freedom but I also believe
that spreading the word is important. I personally felt the power of
software freedom only when I started coding and recompiling. If users
try the freedom with GRUB they may in the future value it and convert
at later time
> --
> 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
>
--
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
