From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MLPNx-0001pn-Q0 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:31:37 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLPNv-0001op-QK for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:31:35 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLPNr-0001n6-3z for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:31:35 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43855 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MLPNq-0001my-UA for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:31:30 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:50611) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MLPNq-0003n7-H0 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:31:30 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2009 18:31:27 -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 57BAD34C6D for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:38:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: References: <20090627121216.GA29067@thorin> <1246248556.22661.24.camel@mj> <20090629134900.GC20463@thorin> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:31:25 -0400 Message-Id: <1246314685.15956.42.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: [PATCH] export -boot parameter as qemu_boot{0,1,2} 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: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:31:36 -0000 On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 22:18 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Robert Millan wrote: > >> We actually agreed > >> a while ago that they are bad, but nobody had time to remove them. > > > > I didn't participate in that discussion. Did Marco and Okuji agree with this? > No. It didn't really end in a clear consesus either (partially: > everybody agreed to remove trampolines). IMO there is nothing bad in > nested function as long as they don't generate trampolines. I guess it will be discussed when the patches will be posted. In any case, there is no need for non-static nested functions in this particular case. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin