From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MItbl-0004gQ-Ut for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:11:30 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MItbk-0004br-6I for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:11:28 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MItbf-0004Y1-3U for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:11:27 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33694 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MItbe-0004Xo-T0 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:11:22 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:40286) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MItbe-0006Gb-DE for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:11:22 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2009 20:11:20 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55F9E34C6A for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:17:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: References: <20090621181748.GA21152@thorin> <20090621185009.GB21495@thorin> <1245611299.4250.13.camel@mj> <20090621193333.GD21827@thorin> <1245700265.2754.4.camel@mj> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:10:54 -0400 Message-Id: <1245715854.7063.51.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.2 (2.26.2-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port) X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:11:28 -0000 On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 00:50 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > I made 3 images with the gap of 0x4000, 0x8000 and 0xc000. > Then I added > an uninitialized array to the kernel, 0x4000 bytes long, and > made > another 3 images with the same gap sizes. The images with the > 0x4000 > gap don't boot and the images with the gap sized 0x8000 and > 0xc000 boot > regardless of the array. > Stupid question but have you ensured/checked that this array isn't > optimized out? Yes, I checked that. It turns out that small variables to to the .sbss section and reduce the minimal gap side (0x8c50 and 0x8c54 are OK). But larger arrays go to the .bss section and don't change the gap (0x8c50 is bad, 0x8c54 is OK). Maybe OpenFirmware is confused by the .sbss section. I'll try a linker script to merge .sbss into the .bss section. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin