"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> .notes : {
>>> *(.note.*)
>>> . = ALIGN(4);
>>> LONG(0);
>>> LONG(0);
>>> LONG(0);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> Oh, I suppose, but I never much liked putting data-definition into the
>> linker script.
>>
>
> I think it should be sparsely used, but stuff like simple end markers is
> pretty
> much what it's good for.
>
> The main reason I want to avoid adding another header field is that the header
> is a finite resource; one of the many poor decisions in its original design
> was
> using a 2-byte jump at the top, so address 0x281 is the end of the universe.
That was fixed long ago (by having a 4 byte reserved field in the middle) that
we can do a two byte jump and then do a farther jump from there to the 16bit
code. So as long as we actually use discipline and really reserve
the field for a further jump there should be no need for 0x281 being the end
of the universe.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
