Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional

[Marco Gerards <mgerards@xs4all.nl>]

"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <okuji@enbug.org> writes:

> On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:35, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>> > I don't like it very much. My first draft was exactly like this. But,
>> > after some discussion in the IRC, I decided to revert my idea, because
>> > specifying so many parameters by hand really sucks. It is too
>> > error-prone.
>>
>> Bits are less error-prone?
>
> Less typing is less error-prone.

What is the problem with typing?  I do not think this is really
complex?  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.

>> How about this:
>>         MB_START_TAGS()
>>         MB_LOADADDR(0x1234)
>>         MB_ENTRYADDR(0x1234)
>>         MB_END_TAGS()
>
> 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?

--
Marco