Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional

["Yoshinori K. Okuji" <okuji@enbug.org>]

On Saturday 02 December 2006 17:18, Marco Gerards wrote:
> What is the problem with typing?  I do not think this is really
> complex?

Weird. It was _you_ who pointed out that specifying tags would be annoying on 
the IRC...

> And this is just in the initial stage of the implementation 
> of an operating system.  I don't think this is a problem, I think
> something that is clear from the context, which is the case in Hollis'
> proposal will prevent such errors.

I do think it is a problem. Whether it is a small portion in OS development or 
not does not matter. If it is problematic, it is.

Reversely, I ask you a question. What is the real advantage in using tags in a 
Multiboot header?

From my point of view, it is not necessarily very extensible or flexible, as 
our experience shows that changes to the Multiboot header are rarely demanded 
(so far, only once, IIRC).

> > How to abbreviate information does not matter. When one implements an OS,
> > she must put the definition at somewhere anyway. Even if we provide a
> > sample implementation, not all people won't use it, because there are
> > various assemblers and compilers. For example, if our example is for GNU
> > as, nasm users won't use it. So the spec must be simple.
>
> Can't this be done with nasm?

Don't take my words literaly. I just put nasm as an example. There are plenty 
of different languages, and would you like to provide sample code for _all_ 
languages in the world?

Okuji