On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 04:10 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 25 November 2006 03:09, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 12:55 -0800, Joe Bonasera wrote:
> > > If grub2 really needs to make the
> > > format/content variant, I would much rather see it vary based on the
> > > target OS type. Or better yet, just always use the larger size data
> > > types/content - even for 32 bit booting.
> >
> > I agree; I think experience has shown that not changing the data size at
> > all is the best solution. That will also simplify the GRUB
> > implementation, and I will make that change (to code and spec) soon.
>
> I disagree. Please don't make such a change. I'm not willing to make
> difference between i386 and x86_64 in the Multiboot Specification.
That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both
architectures will use 64-bit types.
The wording in question is this:
"a boot loader must follow natural address size which is defined
on each architecture"
"a boot loader must define the address size as 32-bit and 64-bit
for ELF32 and ELF64, respectively"
etc.
-Hollis
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
