[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support)

From: Tomas Ebenlendr
Subject: Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:49:53 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i

> On Friday 15 October 2004 03:16, Johan Rydberg wrote:
> > So why not just stop using -mregparm=3?  I'm pretty sure it isn't
> > needed in GRUB, since a boot loader doesn't have very high
> > performance constrains.
> It is necessary for the size constraint. Note that we don't need to use 
> the same binary between the real GRUB and the emulated one. And, the 
> emulation is only useful for debugging. So if grub-emu is difficult to 
> maintain, I vote for just dropping it.
> Okuji

No, it isn't. I think grub-emu is important for example for saving
default menu entry mechanism or so. I also thought that grub-setup will
be replaced by install mechanism which will be in grub (and grub-emu).
And I think, that in such case will be less confusing, when there will
be one binary (module) for both grub-emu and grub (boottime).

So, what is the size constraint? Is it for machines with small stack?
If so, do we recurse so deep somewhere?
                                 Tomas 'ebi' Ebenlendr
                                 PF 2004.7946652373

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]