[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support)
From: |
Marco Gerards |
Subject: |
Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support) |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:48:20 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <address@hidden> writes:
>> So, what is the size constraint? Is it for machines with small stack?
>
> No. This is the same as GRUB legacy. We want to use free space right
> after the MBR, but this region is quite small (normally, 31KB). I
> reduced the binary size very seriously to make core.img fit in this
> region, and I don't want to give it up.
Do you remember how much is gained by doing this? I do agree with
you, I am just asking out of curiosity.
Thanks,
Marco
- NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), (continued)
- 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, 2004/10/15
- 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 <=
- 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
Re: iso9660 support, Marco Gerards, 2004/10/15