On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Greg Watson wrote:
> I'd like to hear more about what Stefan had in mind for the 'small set of C > functions'. Maybe the simplest way would be to pass the device tree itself to > the payload? I guess it wouldn't solve the binary/ascii problem, but it would > sure as hell make the code easy. no, that will not work, due to the compiler portability issues. The Plan 9 C compiler won't work against GCC structs in any cases where __attribute(xyz) has been used. We have to be careful here -- not all payloads are compiled with gcc. That's why I favor the s-expression approach. Binary trees are not going to work. ron _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
