Help needed cleaning up sys/boot/{efi,ia64}/ makefiles

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 04:25:49PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> 
> With my patch, I get a slightly different "loader.sym" binary, and
> this is due to linking, i.e., all intermediate objects are the same.

Not quite. efi/libefi/pal.o is different. The difference is harmless
and is caused by picking up asm.h from a different place (without the
patch we get it from machine/asm.h, with the patch we get it from
/usr/include/machine/asm.h). The object file contains the name of
the header file.

Anyway, I cannot reproduce what you're seeing. The differences I get
are irrelevant (like timestamps or padding).

> So I have a few questions:
> 
> - Why the hell removing -M from linker flags (both in unpatched and
>   patched versions of makefiles) seems to affect the loader.sym binary?

Are you sure this is what's going on? I don't see what you're seeing.
The use of -M does not affect the output, AFAICT.

> - Is it safe to commit my patch?  Can someone please run-test it?

Yes. I tested it.

> - Is there a reason why libski is built with -g?  Is it safe to
>   remove it?

I think the reason is that ski uses the debug information, which
helped with the porting. It safe to remove it.

> - What is the reason that we cannot strip the skiload binary?  (A
>   slightly more verbose explanation than the below would be nice.)
> 
> : revision 1.12
> : date: 2003/11/09 06:53:37;  author: marcel;  state: Exp;  lines: +1 -0
> : Do not strip skiload when installed. The stripped binary does not load
> : in the simulator.

See below.

> - What is the reason that we cannot strip the boot.efi binary?  (A
>   slightly more verbose explanation than the below would be nice.)
> 
> : revision 1.17
> : date: 2002/04/07 04:27:50;  author: peter;  state: Exp;  lines: +1 -0
> : We must not let install(1) strip loader.efi when installing it, or the
> : resulting binary will be damaged and no longer work.

I think the problem is related to the fact that both the ski loader
and the EFI loader are not what you call regular programs and that
strip may be buggy in this regard. I haven't actually tried to nail
it down, but I know binutils has bugs. 

-- 
 Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel at xcllnt.net