Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:02:58 +0200
The module `all_video` is used in `util/grub.d/00_header.in`, and
included for grub-pc by default.
To make it easier to load such a GRUB configuration from disk with a
GRUB built as a coreboot payload, add this module also to
`default_payload.elf` by default.
On 08/08/2018 06:03 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:35 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/08/2018 11:27 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> ...
>>> Nor are there plans to trim the target set of gcc down to "current
>>> mainstream targets", whatever that might mean.
>>
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:35 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2018 11:27 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> ...
>> Nor are there plans to trim the target set of gcc down to "current
>> mainstream targets", whatever that might mean.
>
> Well, yes, I just linked one of those gcc targets
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:23 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2018 08:27 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >
> >>> Gold supports only a small fraction of the platforms that BFD does,
> >>
> >> Which of the platforms that are stil
> > There are also targets that do not support ELF. And I know of no plans to
> > remove those targets, or to remove the a.out support they rely on. I'm
> > maintainer for one of them.
>
> The SPARC OBP firmware is a target that does not support ELF which is why
> it is no longer possible to
On 08/08/2018 11:27 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> I don't quite understand.
>
> The original discussion seemed to be the removal of the a.out and coff output
> options specifically for sparc. In other words, a target which used to
> support ELF along with some other formats now supports ELF only.
Y
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 5:23 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2018 08:27 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>
Gold supports only a small fraction of the platforms that BFD does,
>>>
>>> Which of the platforms that are s
On 08/08/2018 08:30 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> We have dozens of bare metal targets which only have support in BFD.
>> Some of these architectures happen to have Linux support too, for embedded
>> applications. All the world is not Linux.
>
> Indeed. For example, NetBSD support 57 platforms (
On 08/08/2018 08:27 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>>> Gold supports only a small fraction of the platforms that BFD does,
>>
>> Which of the platforms that are still relevant for commercial applications
>> are supported by BFD which are not s
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 2:27 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>>> Gold supports only a small fraction of the platforms that BFD does,
>>
>> Which of the platforms that are still relevant for commercial applications
>> are supported by BFD w
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > Gold supports only a small fraction of the platforms that BFD does,
>
> Which of the platforms that are still relevant for commercial applications
> are supported by BFD which are not supported by Gold?
>
> As far as I know, Gold support x
On Aug 08 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> What about elfutils for these purposes? I have been told by gcc people
> that elfutils was supposed to replace binutils in this regard.
BFD is also used by GAS and GPROF.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint =
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, Alan Modra wrote:
> > I don't like things being put that way and I find it against the spirit
> > of free software and its mission to deliver superior solutions that do not
> > put unnecessary limits upon users. If people have a need for a feature,
> > then I think it is t
On 08/08/2018 07:08 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>> Why isn't *what* done on gold? Gold is ELF-only and doesn't use BFD.
>>
>> Development of new features. I know that Gold is ELF-only that's why
>> I was wondering why BFD isn't just kept in maintenance mode.
>
> Gold supports only a small fraction of
>> Why isn't *what* done on gold? Gold is ELF-only and doesn't use BFD.
>
> Development of new features. I know that Gold is ELF-only that's why
> I was wondering why BFD isn't just kept in maintenance mode.
Gold supports only a small fraction of the platforms that BFD does,
and many of those plat
Hi,
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> binutils/bfd recently removed a.out and COFF support for sparc [1].
>
> Unfortunately, this means that we are no longer able to built GRUB or
> SILO for sparc/sparc64 which need to be built as a.out binaries as the
> Open Boot Firmware
>> Another is that people report bugs about leaked memory. Generally
>> that's also a "don't care", since none of "ld", "as" or any of the
>> binutils run as servers.
>>
>> Finally, when anyone wants to make changes to data structures or
>> functions used by all the backends, we have to change all
On 08/08/18 15:20, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> Again, I understand the problem, it's not the first time I am having
>> such a discussion. There was a similar one regarding POWER5 support
>> in Golang [1] and the SPE backend in gcc [2].
>>
>> The problem is just that we are talking about code here that
On 08/08/2018 04:39 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>> Another is that people report bugs about leaked memory. Generally
>>> that's also a "don't care", since none of "ld", "as" or any of the
>>> binutils run as servers.
>>>
>>> Finally, when anyone wants to make changes to data structures or
>>> functio
> Again, I understand the problem, it's not the first time I am having
> such a discussion. There was a similar one regarding POWER5 support
> in Golang [1] and the SPE backend in gcc [2].
>
> The problem is just that we are talking about code here that people
> are actively using so I'm not sure
> > It's not a matter of reworking the code. No one wants to work on it
> > at all! At least, judging by the number of people actively
> > maintaining most of binutils, that seems to be the case. Are *you*
> > interested in maintaining sparc-aout or sparc-coff? There are sparc
> > bug reports d
On 08/08/2018 03:54 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> Again, this isn't fair. You cannot expect having to step up as a maintainer
>> just because they are users of some code.
>
> Not every user has to step up, but someone has to step up. Someone
> has to take care of the code, and using the fair-unfair
On 08/08/2018 03:16 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:58AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> On the other hand, why does bfd even need to be reworked so much?
>
> You'd think that the AOUT and COFF support would be stable by now, and
> that's true enough. There are tw
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:59:22AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Alan,
>
> > > So, can we have COFF/a.out support back, at least for sparc*?
> >
> > I would rather remove all AOUT support. AOUT as a format has been
> > obsolete since the advent of ELF in the 1990s. See for example
> > J. Ar
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:58AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On the other hand, why does bfd even need to be reworked so much?
You'd think that the AOUT and COFF support would be stable by now, and
that's true enough. There are two or three problems that waste
maintainers time tho
Alan,
> > So, can we have COFF/a.out support back, at least for sparc*?
>
> I would rather remove all AOUT support. AOUT as a format has been
> obsolete since the advent of ELF in the 1990s. See for example
> J. Arnold "ELF: An Object File to Mitigate Mischievous Misoneism", In
> Proc. of the S
On 08/08/2018 03:55 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> So, can we have COFF/a.out support back, at least for sparc*?
>
> I would rather remove all AOUT support. AOUT as a format has been
> obsolete since the advent of ELF in the 1990s. See for example
> J. Arnold "ELF: An Object File to Mitigate Mischievo
27 matches
Mail list logo
