From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1EkpzU-0005re-4c for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:41:20 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EkpzT-0005rX-Fa for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:41:19 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EkpzR-0005r8-U4 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:41:19 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EkpzR-0005r4-RC for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:41:17 -0500 Received: from [194.109.24.37] (helo=smtp-vbr17.xs4all.nl) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ekq0h-0007nO-Qk for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:42:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (mgerards.xs4all.nl [82.92.27.129]) by smtp-vbr17.xs4all.nl (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jB9Lerrm094987 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 22:40:53 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mgerards@xs4all.nl) Mail-Copies-To: mgerards@xs4all.nl To: The development of GRUB 2 References: From: Marco Gerards Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:40:54 +0100 In-Reply-To: (andre-smith@speakeasy.net's message of "Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:01:50 +0000") Message-ID: <87u0diosnt.fsf@xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) 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: GRUB2 Build on Mac OS X 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: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:41:19 -0000 andre-smith@speakeasy.net writes: > Since the GRUB2 tools built using a Linux GCC compiler will suffice at > the moment, I can see why the team is not overly concerned with this > issue. If GRUB2 is going to be portable(Mac OS X), then some changes > will be needed to accomplish this goal. GCC is a GNU project, not a Linux project... Hopefully you understand we can't always fix things other people deliberately break. And what is more important to me is that we need a solid and stable codebase first, one that most regular contributors are happy with. > If stack execution support is disabled in future releases of other > operating systems, it will become an issue of nested functions > implemented with stack execution, and less of an Apple GCC compiler > issue. In that case we should figure out how to fix this. But apple didn't just disable the execution on the stack, they fucked up the compiler. -- Marco