Re: Warnings in kern/dl.c

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello, Bean! >> >> I think this change from the x86_64 EFI patch should be reverted: >> >>* kern/dl.c (GRUB_CPU_SIZEOF_VOID_P): Changed to >>

Re: Warnings in kern/dl.c

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, Bean! > > I think this change from the x86_64 EFI patch should be reverted: > >* kern/dl.c (GRUB_CPU_SIZEOF_VOID_P): Changed to > GRUB_TARGET_SIZEOF_VOID_P. > > It causes warnings when compiling grub-e

Warnings in kern/dl.c

Hello, Bean! I think this change from the x86_64 EFI patch should be reverted: * kern/dl.c (GRUB_CPU_SIZEOF_VOID_P): Changed to GRUB_TARGET_SIZEOF_VOID_P. It causes warnings when compiling grub-emu on x64_64 for i386: kern/dl.c: In function 'grub_dl_resolve_symbols': kern/dl.c

Re: Idea: elimination of the normal mode (revised version)

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 11:24 +0800, Bean wrote: > >> Any comment for this idea ? > > Maybe you could describe was it will give us and what the drawbacks may > be? It's hard to comment on the implementation ideas without seei

menu loop (patch)

Hello, I'm a Grub user (thanks for your nice work!) and I always wanted to have a menu that "loops". Like, if you press down and you are in the last option it goes to the first one, and if you press up but you are int he first option goes to the last. Attached comes a patch against revision 1718

Re: subversion repository structure

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 21:59 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > > If we're using branches, I suggest the following layout: > > > > branches > >grub-legacy > > trunk > > tags > > grub-0.97 > > grub-1.96 > > ... > > > > trunk is grub2, the current develop branch, and grub-legacy is under > >

Re: Idea: elimination of the normal mode (revised version)

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 11:24 +0800, Bean wrote: > Any comment for this idea ? Maybe you could describe was it will give us and what the drawbacks may be? It's hard to comment on the implementation ideas without seeing the bigger picture. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin __

Re: [PATCH] Simplify target and platform checks

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 19:03 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: > Confirmed to work on amd64 PC with Ubuntu Hardy (default system type > from config.guess is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Thanks. Applied. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ___ Grub-devel mailing list Gr

Re: [PATCH] Simplify target and platform checks

El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 12:50 -0400, Pavel Roskin escribió: > ChangeLog: > > * configure.ac: Default to efi platform for x86_64-apple. Allow > powerpc64 CPU, default to ieee1275 platform for it. Split CPU > adjustments from the rest, only do them if target is not > expli

[PATCH] Simplify target and platform checks

ChangeLog: * configure.ac: Default to efi platform for x86_64-apple. Allow powerpc64 CPU, default to ieee1275 platform for it. Split CPU adjustments from the rest, only do them if target is not explicitly given. Merge other adjustments with the final sanity

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 18:01 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: > I think this one would be better, as it follows the structure what's > done with i386: vendor=apple -> efi; anything_else -> pc. That's a good call. I'm working on a more radical patch now. I'll post it for review. > Also, this one > e

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 12:06 -0400, Pavel Roskin escribió: > On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 23:50 +0800, Bean wrote: > > > It does not reach that point, the "unsupported machine type" message is > > > thrown by this earlier check (line 59) > > > > Hi, > > > > Oh, you're right, use this patch: > > It's

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 23:50 +0800, Bean wrote: > > It does not reach that point, the "unsupported machine type" message is > > thrown by this earlier check (line 59) > > Hi, > > Oh, you're right, use this patch: It's there already. Now I'm trying to simplify checks and make output more comprehe

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 23:50 +0800, Bean escribió: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Javier Martín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 23:26 +0800, Bean escribió: > >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:0

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Javier Martín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 23:26 +0800, Bean escribió: >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:02 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: >> >> El jue, 17-07-2008 a las

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 23:26 +0800, Bean escribió: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:02 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: > >> El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 17:50 +0800, Bean escribió: > >> > Committed. > >> > > >> Seemingly, the fact th

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 23:18 +0800, Bean wrote: > Hi, > > To compile 32-bit efi: > > ./configure --platform=efi --target=i386 > > To compile 64-bit efi: > > ./configure --platform=efi --target=x86_64 > > This works in i386 and x86_64 host. If you don't use --target, it will > build native image

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:02 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: >> El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 17:50 +0800, Bean escribió: >> > Committed. >> > >> Seemingly, the fact that there is now separate recognition for "x86_64" >> machine type

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:02 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: > El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 17:50 +0800, Bean escribió: > > Committed. > > > Seemingly, the fact that there is now separate recognition for "x86_64" > machine types has borked the current build system in amd64 PCs: > > $ make > ./config.statu

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Javier Martín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 17:50 +0800, Bean escribió: >> Committed. >> > Seemingly, the fact that there is now separate recognition for "x86_64" > machine types has borked the current build system in amd64 PCs: > > $ make >

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 17:50 +0800, Bean escribió: > Committed. > Seemingly, the fact that there is now separate recognition for "x86_64" machine types has borked the current build system in amd64 PCs: $ make ./config.status --recheck running CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/bash /bin/bash ../src/configure --

Re: Solaris boot

Javier Martín schrieb: Can grub2 load solaris 32 kernel? Is Solaris Multiboot-compatible? If not, you can try to use its own bootloader through the `chainloader' command. However, if grub1 could It's multiboot compatible, but with a broken multiboot header (defines a.out kludge while being ELF

Re: Solaris boot

El jue, 17-07-2008 a las 16:10 +0400, Alexander Eremin escribió: > Hi all, > Any way to boot Solaris from grub2? I mean: don't use something like > rootnoverify and makeactive > but write at the end of linux menu.lst something like > > root (hd1,1) > kernel /boot/platform/x86/kernel/unix > modul

Solaris boot

Hi all, Any way to boot Solaris from grub2? I mean: don't use something like rootnoverify and makeactive but write at the end of linux menu.lst something like root (hd1,1) kernel /boot/platform/x86/kernel/unix module /platform/x86/kernel/boot_archive Can grub2 load solaris 32 kernel? -- Best

Re: [PATCH] New x86_64 EFI patch

Committed. -- Bean ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel