From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MISnP-0001jc-P4 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:33:43 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MISnO-0001jT-FJ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:33:42 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MISnJ-0001jA-22 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:33:41 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48331 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MISnI-0001j7-Tf for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:33:36 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:28379) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MISnI-0005Km-HQ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:33:36 -0400 Received: from aybabtu.com ([69.60.117.155]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MISnI-0002f9-0u for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:33:36 -0400 Received: from [192.168.10.10] (helo=thorin) by aybabtu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MIRkN-0004dD-9V for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:26:31 +0200 Received: from rmh by thorin with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MISnF-0005iM-8P for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:33:33 +0200 Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:33:33 +0200 From: Robert Millan To: The development of GRUB 2 Message-ID: <20090621193333.GD21827@thorin> References: <20090621181748.GA21152@thorin> <20090621185009.GB21495@thorin> <1245611299.4250.13.camel@mj> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1245611299.4250.13.camel@mj> Organization: free as in freedom X-Message-Flag: Worried about Outlook viruses? Switch to Thunderbird! www.mozilla.com/thunderbird X-Debbugs-No-Ack: true User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Detected-Operating-System: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:33:42 -0000 On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 03:08:19PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 20:50 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > Does anyone know why do we align ELF targets? When I did the coreboot port, > > the ELF part was based on existing Ieee1275 code, so I guess I just mimicked > > it. Is there some issue with non-i386 CPUs or with some Ieee1275 > > implementations that makes this alignment a requirement? > > It was a hack for PowerPC openfirmware. I don't know why it was needed. > I didn't have time and desire to debug openfirmware to find out what it > wants. Is the hack you're referring to GRUB_MOD_GAP, GRUB_MOD_ALIGN or both? Btw, I suspect GRUB_MOD_GAP might be related to the modules overlapping with the BSS because of a firmware loader bug. Is there a correlation between the needed GRUB_MOD_GAP and the BSS size? -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."