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? :) -- Craig _______________________________________________ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
