> On Mar 29, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Craig Rodrigues <rodr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > If we built a UFS1-only boot2, that would fit in the 7.5k we have left > to play with. We could then build a UFS2-only boot2 that would easily > fit in the like 32k limit that UFS2 has. > > The only reason we went to supporting both was to have something > universal. Since it requires a reformat to go from UFS1 -> UFS2 we > wanted the transition to be as smooth as possible so you didn’t have > to add boot blocks into the mix. > > Now the only people that use UFS1 are people with really old systems > that are never going to upgrade, or people building new systems with > UFS1 because they are space constrained (for whatever reasons that > we’re not going to debate here: they are still real). > > In the past 5 years, I have worked on some embedded systems where UFS1 was > chosen because of very low memory and disk space requirements. > So those systems are real and out there. > > Just out of curiousity, what is it about newer compilers that cause > the size of boot2 to increase so much? > > Could we do some silly things like removing/reducing the use of printf() > to save some more bytes, in order to buy us more time, before having > to rewrite everything? :)
Removing printf isn’t going to save us. It usually compiles to 80-120 bytes. I think the only sane way forward is boot2.ufs1 an boot2.ufs2 plus maybe some safety belts in the boot block splatter programs to prevent brickification. Warner
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
