Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:56:49 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@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: <7A9A90EA-E052-425E-BE90-9290B0CAB03F@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAG=rPVf5AwjjjLL-xkv%2BbAaX4CHaoB5iwF9nD59GuVc3qGo64g@mail.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_1EC3A099-7879-4FDA-830E-EFC1DD3D8E9F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > On Mar 29, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> = wrote: >=20 > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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=92t have > to add boot blocks into the mix. >=20 > 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=92re not going to debate here: they are still real). >=20 > 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. >=20 > Just out of curiousity, what is it about newer compilers that cause > the size of boot2 to increase so much? >=20 > 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 isn=92t 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. Warner --Apple-Mail=_1EC3A099-7879-4FDA-830E-EFC1DD3D8E9F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVGIMyAAoJEGwc0Sh9sBEA8lUP/itq1ITq5ycOuDbph6/xlXh3 OMKFzX3m8a2R8a0fXSO0SURNmwITRHCDlrJXOBege4SyAN51IQhu/tOxGlxHhnnG WRZ1QN3edlXKHRQ5EqmeEAyGQ7N0ZZbKTVp5l0utDdEhyNPB4tgumW92rYmzQWu7 icPbjLwQ3DMaXbLvUGpZLfRFXRy3lRbxVVId9ON4j3h7kxrmRXkPj6v4esuZ98Iu xImKXfUQdB6bCIztaaUMOdQrrqyBhYT+LCpCHO+7P545tjxoAaZGNOK/UgP7rvw4 P2yCN5Fspirdbfv8298omJmLkZE952Y2/dnR3paCGWJyESf7FNI8BM6XvppCrTCX N23P4GFMJuYyTlOO3yj/Q0R7U8GI8boqn98tKnAKcqcKmBONWXhJ2HaltUCsDDxV M/M6I8BN72A7JLKe884XZC20LEG8jT/VZIwM7hob/3MWdoCn1XHT7fJTVPxDpFAJ D1ksL2uXJxBEqu5Nm+tDJRDI4RJQ/wfY4nCUxzvZWq1WVVO4alTL5xvZDuY0tZah KT6baBrlmV2zZUzGJNXz3YpjWoeirNo+hs8/jbEMRKMWfu03PD5wptv0I4pkhx4w /4H0Hz4jeNZhGjyVZceZ84OwTAxFVmdP/9ubYY5UJiotLur979cf8+MyR2Snd+Le JOo0NThx9eU4kV8cFIFN =R4Z6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1EC3A099-7879-4FDA-830E-EFC1DD3D8E9F--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7A9A90EA-E052-425E-BE90-9290B0CAB03F>