Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:05:32 -0500
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To:        "Jung-uk Kim" <jkim@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r232570 - head/sys/boot/i386/boot2
Message-ID:  <201203081105.32334.jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <201203071700.21259.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <201203051953.q25JrIS1002269@svn.freebsd.org> <201203071700.21259.jkim@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 5:00:19 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Monday 05 March 2012 02:53 pm, John Baldwin wrote:
> > Author: jhb
> > Date: Mon Mar  5 19:53:17 2012
> > New Revision: 232570
> > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/232570
> >
> > Log:
> >   Fix boot2 to handle boot config files that only contain a custom
> > path to a loader or kernel.  Specifically, kname cannot be pointed
> > at cmd[] since it's value is change to be an empty string after the
> > initial call to parse, and cmd[]'s value can be changed (thus
> > losing a prior setting for kname) due to user input at the boot
> > prompt.  While here, ensure that that initial boot config file text
> > is nul-terminated, that ops is initialized to zero, and that kname
> > is always initialized to a valid string.
> 
> As many people pointed out, Clang overflows boot2 again after this 
> commit.  Long long time ago, I asked this question on arch@:
> 
> http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200509081418.47794.jkim
> 
> Why can't we do that now?  Can't we build separate ufs1-only and 
> ufs2-only boot2's, at least?  Having ufs1+ufs2 boot block is great 
> but I see very little benefit to support that in 2012. :-/

As I said on the reply to current@, I think having separate boot blocks will 
be a headache and PITA for our users.  Let's see if we can get boot2 to fit 
without breaking functionality first.  It is a shame that gcc outperforms 
clang so drastically in this case (gcc's boot2 is about 250 bytes smaller than 
clang's).

-- 
John Baldwin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201203081105.32334.jhb>