Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:37:18 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fails to build sys/i386/boot2 with gcc 4.9 Message-ID: <32F42F43-0AFA-4562-B845-4612D123742E@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7A9A90EA-E052-425E-BE90-9290B0CAB03F@bsdimp.com> References: <CAG=rPVcXPMqifAJvg_-XNWrOUzDLya1UMWW5KMymymyayM25=w@mail.gmail.com> <20683705-0EBA-4B8F-A0CE-9C06B8003BBE@FreeBSD.org> <20150329082734.GA13058@vlakno.cz> <B6DB2849-2985-4658-AD13-E9E99E8BE731@bsdimp.com> <CAG=rPVf5AwjjjLL-xkv%2BbAaX4CHaoB5iwF9nD59GuVc3qGo64g@mail.gmail.com> <7A9A90EA-E052-425E-BE90-9290B0CAB03F@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mar 29, 2015, at 15:56, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 29, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> 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 didnft 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 >> wefre 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? :) > > Removing printf isnft going to save us. It usually compiles to 80-120 bytes. > > I think the only sane way forward is boot2.ufs1 an boot2.ufs2 plus maybe > some safety belts in the boot block splatter programs to prevent > brickification. Since the proposal to split up the code by filesystems is on the table, would it make sense to do something similar for zfs? Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32F42F43-0AFA-4562-B845-4612D123742E>