At Tue, 14 May 2002 11:06:28 +0300, Yuri Zaporogets wrote: > IMO, multiboot kluge is one big hack itself :) . Modifying two lines > in boot.c won't harm anything, and it's not a violation of current > Multiboot standard (behavior of the boot loader under such conditions > isn't specified anywhere). 'mbchk' program runs all tests successfully, > so we don't need to touch it at all.
Hmm... So we increase hacks? Oh, this world must be hell. Okay, if you stick to the idea so much, I don't object. I'm not very concerned about the a.out kludge anyway. But it is essential to update the Multiboot Specification precedently, because I want to avoid any GRUB-specific extension to the spec, if possible. Would you like to work on this? On another thing: I don't think it is a good idea to use -1 as invalid values. It is 0xffffffff actually, so it must be valid certainly. Therefore, I think it would be better to use 0 as invalid values instead, because: 1. If you wanna load an OS image, (load_end_addr == 0) is nonsense. That makes sense only when (load_addr == 0), but, even in this case, (load_end_addr - load_addr == 0) means that no code is loaded, so this case is also nonsense anyway. 2. (bss_end_addr == 0) is nonsense, because, as shown above, load_end_addr must be greater than zero. What do you think? Okuji _______________________________________________ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub
