Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 21:52:03 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.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: <CA131BFF-A2F9-4432-ADC7-4391E498B876@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <32F42F43-0AFA-4562-B845-4612D123742E@gmail.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> <32F42F43-0AFA-4562-B845-4612D123742E@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] > On Mar 29, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 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! zfs isnft in boot2 by default, just ufs1 and ufs2, so I onft understand the question. Warner [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVGMhkAAoJEGwc0Sh9sBEAFHUP/3UsnL3nIxS3QFrmIaOiz0K1 qJgpojqBhPGpTIoc01Sixh4WUJUk16J7hL5e3iDITrR10NkWYn+bYGYvG+/kEZfR gfX9N1vMmBlc39OvUANgoDd5lJZ2slI9Jp2PEwcr1gh/ofS2G1OwZkcVcd2xc478 pwpGI35i0V5yB547t3BFEnwmY1bjNvZyYfhA8Kkk/MNmytufwmm196mjetBsgWO+ vvQXbLIbRCJ6ZaIVqom4hceJwRzwLxaSyttssIkB+N/wMC+RDizjeBhx8+Rg1nTT aFSka9uThEkeikrTRfWA5Md+PF+s194AEKdfXOLLktYnJip+/5nGseloz+X4j01n ul6ZMhZEZNPqX6enI3jVa1GK7XnQAyaAfZMcXpSOdqlLlrqalDA0ibntbhpr5cw4 atkN9xzMO38RBTTm9cijobpWZTONT+pT4Gc+Rmy+ppVshawWeRha6WlX8/ZbX4xb y6avqi7y3i4Nx348LBbh7vfDxsP4xel/H7nNp67JJEVegkCOmEFaCp3+jZd8Hyfx 1yrFARzYCHTErAnzvQXOy0cSUxllajXx1J+GaXewGI66sdXaf0Gku3ixTfvksHd+ dBuCDN+VXQaDFs6hpCTYP2Upzv+HDXaPLvdcZfbeZ2ujRjhUmOOWFkuSMBKvhxxY zGNzO4fKDKE9Iy9IkWRH =6RBF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA131BFF-A2F9-4432-ADC7-4391E498B876>