On 05.12.2010, at 13:37, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/05/2010 02:05 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> > >> > diff --git a/config-x86-common.mak b/config-x86-common.mak >> > index b541c1c..c5508b3 100644 >> > --- a/config-x86-common.mak >> > +++ b/config-x86-common.mak >> > @@ -20,9 +20,12 @@ CFLAGS += -m$(bits) >> > libgcc := $(shell $(CC) -m$(bits) --print-libgcc-file-name) >> > >> > FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) >> > -%.flat: %.o $(FLATLIBS) flat.lds >> > +%.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) flat.lds >> > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,flat.lds $(filter %.o, $^) >> > $(FLATLIBS) >> > >> > +%.flat: %.elf >> > + objcopy -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ >> >> Not sure it's that great to call 32bit elf binaries ".flat". I'd rather >> expect a flat file when reading that file extension ;). Mind to just call it >> ".elf32"? > > It's a reminder from the good old days that these were flat files loaded by > kvmctl.
Nothing's as permanent as an improvised solution :). >> Alternatively, you could also use real flat files and shove a multiboot >> header into the binary. > > I'll rename them in a later patch. .elf32 isn't a good name either, it > implies 32-bit execution, whereas it's just the file format due to multiboot > constraints. Maybe .test (and .test32 and .test64 when we build both). Yeah, anything really. The .flat is definitely just wrong ;). .test32 and .test64 always sounds good to me. No reason to be clever and also have .test. Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
