On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 04:10 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Saturday 25 November 2006 03:09, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 12:55 -0800, Joe Bonasera wrote: > > > If grub2 really needs to make the > > > format/content variant, I would much rather see it vary based on the > > > target OS type. Or better yet, just always use the larger size data > > > types/content - even for 32 bit booting. > > > > I agree; I think experience has shown that not changing the data size at > > all is the best solution. That will also simplify the GRUB > > implementation, and I will make that change (to code and spec) soon. > > I disagree. Please don't make such a change. I'm not willing to make > difference between i386 and x86_64 in the Multiboot Specification.
That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both architectures will use 64-bit types. The wording in question is this: "a boot loader must follow natural address size which is defined on each architecture" "a boot loader must define the address size as 32-bit and 64-bit for ELF32 and ELF64, respectively" etc. -Hollis _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel