Hi Ron, maybe it would make sense to include your mail almost verbatim in newboot.lyx. IIRC newboot.lyx seemed to suggest a different code flow.
Carl-Daniel On 30.08.2007 00:25, ron minnich wrote: > I am confusing you, maybe. > > stage0 is not pic. stage0 is non-pic. initram is pic. initram, which > is pic, needs to call stage0, which is not pic. > > To add to the fun, stage0 does make one call to initram: it calls > initram's main. > > On 8/29/07, Peter Stuge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Please don't use stage0 to tag the PIC code, use pic instead. >> stage0printk would become picprintk, or maybe pic_printk. > > this implies to me that the printk itself is pic, which it is not. Another > name? > > >> I would like that file to be called just pic.o and be unrelated to >> anything stage0 - except of course that stage0 calls the code in >> pic.o. > > except that file IS stage0.o. It's stage0 with all the symbols > renamed. What do we call them? > > >> I think the method is great but I want to choose all filenames >> carefully so it is really clear what is going on. >> >> Btw - why couldn't everyone call the PIC functions? > > stage0 is not pic. If we make it pic, it ballons. When gcc generates > PIC code, it still generates relative calls. Gcc is not tremendously > good at generating PIC, what it really creates is "PIC assuming you > use the GNU shared library techniques". -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
