[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support)

From: Marco Gerards
Subject: Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:41:52 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

Tomas Ebenlendr <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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).

The main reason why I made grub-emu is because it is convenient when
I am debugging things.  So please do not drop it.

As for module support, it is really important for me to have in
grub-emu.  But I do not care too much about compatibility between the
normal modules and those of grub-emu.

Perhaps it would be even best if grub-emu is disabled when GRUB is
built by normal users.  And it is the best that a debugging tool like
this does not have any impact of GRUB itself.  Therefore I agree with

I really hope install mechanisms will not be added to grub-emu in a
way people will all start using it.  But that is just a matter of
personal taste.


reply via email to

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