[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support)
From: |
Yoshinori K. Okuji |
Subject: |
Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support) |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:40:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.6.1 |
On Friday 15 October 2004 03:16, Johan Rydberg wrote:
> So why not just stop using -mregparm=3? I'm pretty sure it isn't
> needed in GRUB, since a boot loader doesn't have very high
> performance constrains.
It is necessary for the size constraint. Note that we don't need to use
the same binary between the real GRUB and the emulated one. And, the
emulation is only useful for debugging. So if grub-emu is difficult to
maintain, I vote for just dropping it.
Okuji
- iso9660 support, Marco Gerards, 2004/10/14
- Re: iso9660 support, Johan Rydberg, 2004/10/14
- NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Tomas Ebenlendr, 2004/10/14
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Johan Rydberg, 2004/10/14
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support),
Yoshinori K. Okuji <=
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Tomas Ebenlendr, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Marco Gerards, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Tomas Ebenlendr, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Marco Gerards, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Marco Gerards, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Marco Gerards, 2004/10/18