From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1GqXOm-0006R7-T6 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:07:32 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GqXOl-0006Ol-3a for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:07:31 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GqXOi-0006Iq-9k for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:07:30 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqXOi-0006Ia-2B for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:07:28 -0500 Received: from [194.109.24.29] (helo=smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GqXOh-0006bw-F5 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:07:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (249-174.surfsnel.dsl.internl.net [145.99.174.249]) by smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kB2G7Qpk076358 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 17:07:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mgerards@xs4all.nl) From: Marco Gerards To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <1163545104.12931.49.camel@basalt> <200611250359.19398.okuji@enbug.org> <1164425741.3827.23.camel@diesel> <200611250525.00823.okuji@enbug.org> Mail-Copies-To: mgerards@xs4all.nl Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:18:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200611250525.00823.okuji@enbug.org> (Yoshinori K. Okuji's message of "Sat, 25 Nov 2006 05:25:00 +0100") Message-ID: <877ixa2rwd.fsf@xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional 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: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:07:31 -0000 "Yoshinori K. Okuji" 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