[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Report: compil error on OSX for target=i386

From: Robert Millan
Subject: Re: Report: compil error on OSX for target=i386
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:46:43 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:10:17PM +0200, Yves Blusseau wrote:
>>> What about following compromise:
>>> diff --git a/loader/i386/linux.c b/loader/i386/linux.c
>>> index 4144384..1380eb8 100644
>>> --- a/loader/i386/linux.c
>>> +++ b/loader/i386/linux.c
>>> @@ -543,7 +543,8 @@ grub_linux_boot (void)
>>>   asm volatile ("lgdt %0" : : "m" (gdt_desc));
>>>   /* Enter Linux.  */
>>> -  asm volatile ("jmp *%2" : : "b" (0), "S" (real_mode_mem), "g"
>>> (params->code32_start));
>>> +  asm volatile ("xorl %%ebx, %%ebx\n"
>>> +                     "jmp *%1" : : "S" (real_mode_mem), "g"
>>> (params->code32_start));
>>>  #endif
>> Is this compromise acceptable?
> Compil and work on OSX.
> Is it ok to commit it ?

Apple is free to cripple the version of GCC they're shipping (we wanted
them to have this freedom, even if they're unfriendly towards free software).
I think it's short-sighted, but it's their problem.

However, on our side, I'm not satisfied at all with accomodating to arbitrary
limitations like this one.  This seems like a slippery slope.  If we do it
now, what's the next one?

It's much easier to make official GCC a build requirement.  People hacking
on GRUB source, or distributors (e.g. Fink) should have no problem with a
dependency on GCC.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

reply via email to

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