On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 5:00:19 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Monday 05 March 2012 02:53 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > > Author: jhb > > Date: Mon Mar 5 19:53:17 2012 > > New Revision: 232570 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/232570 > > > > Log: > > Fix boot2 to handle boot config files that only contain a custom > > path to a loader or kernel. Specifically, kname cannot be pointed > > at cmd[] since it's value is change to be an empty string after the > > initial call to parse, and cmd[]'s value can be changed (thus > > losing a prior setting for kname) due to user input at the boot > > prompt. While here, ensure that that initial boot config file text > > is nul-terminated, that ops is initialized to zero, and that kname > > is always initialized to a valid string. > > As many people pointed out, Clang overflows boot2 again after this > commit. Long long time ago, I asked this question on arch@: > > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200509081418.47794.jkim > > Why can't we do that now? Can't we build separate ufs1-only and > ufs2-only boot2's, at least? Having ufs1+ufs2 boot block is great > but I see very little benefit to support that in 2012. :-/
As I said on the reply to current@, I think having separate boot blocks will be a headache and PITA for our users. Let's see if we can get boot2 to fit without breaking functionality first. It is a shame that gcc outperforms clang so drastically in this case (gcc's boot2 is about 250 bytes smaller than clang's). -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
