Re: grub_halt()

2009-12-04 Thread Robert Millan
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 08:01:01PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:24:39PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' > Serbinenko wrote: > > Felix Zielcke wrote: > > > grub_halt is on i386-pc defined as `void grub_halt (int no_apm)' but > > > everywhere else as `grub_halt (void)'

Re: grub_halt()

2009-11-28 Thread Robert Millan
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:24:39PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > Felix Zielcke wrote: > > grub_halt is on i386-pc defined as `void grub_halt (int no_apm)' but > > everywhere else as `grub_halt (void)' > > util/grub-emu.c has a #ifdef for these 2 > > > > Shouldn't we just ad

Re: grub_halt()

2009-11-27 Thread Felix Zielcke
Am Freitag, den 27.11.2009, 22:24 +0100 schrieb Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko: > Felix Zielcke wrote: > > grub_halt is on i386-pc defined as `void grub_halt (int no_apm)' but > > everywhere else as `grub_halt (void)' > > util/grub-emu.c has a #ifdef for these 2 > > > > Shouldn't we just add

Re: grub_halt()

2009-11-27 Thread Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
Felix Zielcke wrote: > grub_halt is on i386-pc defined as `void grub_halt (int no_apm)' but > everywhere else as `grub_halt (void)' > util/grub-emu.c has a #ifdef for these 2 > > Shouldn't we just add an int parameter everywhere to make this more > simple? > > I think in future we'll have more d