From owner-freebsd-testing@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 29 20:29:48 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF96E1E2; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 20:29:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B80A309; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 20:29:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labe2 with SMTP id e2so103705326lab.3; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:29:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Cal+6UGJnrCcjPE0BFOK9iYwrV012S7AyA/mOGaZE7I=; b=Snw4gNibXFP7eUyfEKUfT5qb6UqP1DnvO3FQ9P7oNQC51awOA2Icqg8+/Kz1nuMWZx TpeoNCSN5DuaU4SInSRbG/z/qe8WACnEGw5F8kZ5o20dl3nAF5UL/vEEWES9ze3y6Lh8 MqRuNlLxNFScALuvUfPM2dAahIr/GPJxYigkfPhaKEJG9QaybNbWLmiY0yS/MT71v7RK 1C9ou2Z8bJrJZxMvmw3UpDPeOc05kwn71j2n4gZO7zWZvOa4wa/itaV47IxBGXR4Fn5Y GxBG/yNqmxYV1jD08l2SJnAjaT6uOnUMZ95oYdXD8kzVgyikZUQQatzLtouK+9D0IFbZ AMRg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.166.36 with SMTP id zd4mr10574624lbb.59.1427660986284; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: crodr001@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.108.168 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:29:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20683705-0EBA-4B8F-A0CE-9C06B8003BBE@FreeBSD.org> <20150329082734.GA13058@vlakno.cz> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:29:46 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: XvaJ4bBMrggolZH2Vdbxnqj_I6g Message-ID: Subject: Re: Fails to build sys/i386/boot2 with gcc 4.9 From: Craig Rodrigues To: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" , Roman Divacky , FreeBSD Toolchain , Dimitry Andric X-BeenThere: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Testing on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 20:29:48 -0000 On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > If we built a UFS1-only boot2, that would fit in the 7.5k we have left > to play with. We could then build a UFS2-only boot2 that would easily > fit in the like 32k limit that UFS2 has. > > The only reason we went to supporting both was to have something > universal. Since it requires a reformat to go from UFS1 -> UFS2 we > wanted the transition to be as smooth as possible so you didn't have > to add boot blocks into the mix. > > Now the only people that use UFS1 are people with really old systems > that are never going to upgrade, or people building new systems with > UFS1 because they are space constrained (for whatever reasons that > we're not going to debate here: they are still real). > In the past 5 years, I have worked on some embedded systems where UFS1 was chosen because of very low memory and disk space requirements. So those systems are real and out there. Just out of curiousity, what is it about newer compilers that cause the size of boot2 to increase so much? Could we do some silly things like removing/reducing the use of printf() to save some more bytes, in order to buy us more time, before having to rewrite everything? :) -- Craig