svn commit: r232570 - head/sys/boot/i386/boot2
John Baldwin
jhb at freebsd.org
Thu Mar 8 19:26:30 UTC 2012
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
More information about the svn-src-head
mailing list