[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional

From: Hollis Blanchard
Subject: Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:39:39 -0600

On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 21:04 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 December 2006 20:09, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > I am all for something that is simple.  Initially it looked like
> > > Hollis' proposal was more complex, but IIRC he mentioned he wanted to
> > > work on making this easier to use.  Isn't this what he did?  Or did I
> > > misunderstand something?  If someone (Hollis in this case) thinks I am
> > > wrong and comes with a good argumentation, I am always willing to
> > > change my opinion.
> >
> > I already illustrated how easy it is:
> >         MB_HEADER()
> >         MB_START_TAGS()
> >         MB_LOADADDR(0x1234)
> >         MB_ENTRYADDR(0x1234)
> >         MB_END_TAGS()
> >
> > Please explain if you think this it too difficult.
> I have already said why this is not applicable to all users.
> > Note: I refuse to believe that ORing flags into a .long is less complex.
> I do, too. It is as as complex as using tags. So what?

I thought we had two options: embedding tags, or ORing bits into an
embedded long. When I suggested embedding tags, you told me it was too
complicated so will cause developer errors. Have I misunderstood?


reply via email to

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