Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional

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

On Thursday 07 December 2006 23:39, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> I thought we had two options: embedding tags, or ORing bits into an
> embedded long. When I suggested embedding tags, you told me it was too
> complicated so will cause developer errors. Have I misunderstood?

I meant that the complexity of using bitfields plus a fixed-size structure is 
identical to that of using tags. But I bet that it is more complicated to use 
tags _by hand_. For me, "complex" and "complicated" are quite different.

Besides how to make it look easier by predefined macros, please consider the 
spec itself. With bitfields and fixed-size fields, all you must remember is:

- What bits mean what

- How to order values passed to a boot loader

With tags, you need to remember:

- What tags mean what

- What tag size is expected to each tag

- What tags must be combined with a given tag

If you generate tags by programming, I don't think the use of tags is more 
complicated. It can be even easier for a parser. However, when specifying 
tags by hand, I cannot believe that it is as straightforward as using fields.

If you allow me to use a "big gun", I would tell you that most system 
programmers are used to fields, while they are not familar with writing tags.

Okuji