Usb boot loader would be just a nice feature to have in an existent application.
Why should one use "tiny kernel + kexec", if there are such a wonderful things like linuxbios and filo? On Nov 16, 2007 8:07 PM, yhlu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 16, 2007 4:42 AM, Fridel Fainshtein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Etherboot does not work with gcc 4. At least filo part. > > As I remember, I found a few strange things like > > #if 0 <-- original > > #define isdigit(c) ((c & 0x04) != 0) > > #define islower(c) ((c & 0x02) != 0) > > //#define isspace(c) ((c & 0x20) != 0) > > #define isupper(c) ((c & 0x01) != 0) > > #else <-- not optimized correction > > #define isdigit(c) (c >= '0' && c <= '9') > > #define islower(c) (c >= 'a' && c <= 'z') > > #define isupper(c) (c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z') > > #endif > > > > These strange things caused FILO in ETHERBOOT not to work. > > I"ve never tested but does FILO in ETHERBOOT work if it is compiled with > > gcc 3? > > the dev environment for that was RHEL 9 on 32bit laptop. > OHCI was working Tyan s2885 or s2880. > > what will your application be? why not use tiny kernel + kexec instead? > > YH > -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
