[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 01/11] Fix base64 module to work with grub codebase

From: Daniel Kiper
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] Fix base64 module to work with grub codebase
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:24:31 +0100
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)

CC-ing Vladimir...

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 02:34:25PM -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> > On 10/28/21 12:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know why Patrick chose to
> >> not use that instead, but a local test seems to work.
> >
> > Is grub2 intended to be portable to compilers that don't support
> > <stdbool.h>? If that's the issue, I suggest that grub2 stop worrying
> > that. Surely every compiler of interest to grub2 supports <stdbool.h>
> > already. And if you really need to support older compilers, the Gnulib
> > stdbool module should suffice.
> >
> >> grub2 shims out config.h for some build targets (e.g., when not building
> >> utilities).
> >
> > Why does it need to do that? Is this because of cross-building, and
> > where <config.h> is for the utilities platform which is not the same as
> > the target platform? If so, that suggests that you should run two
> > 'configure' instances, one for the utilities and one for the target, and
> > compile the base64 module twice if it's used in both places.
> I'll defer to Daniel on why things are the way they are, but I don't
> disagree with you.

Vladimir told me once we are doing that because otherwise we would be
leaking too many "OS specific things" into the GRUB core and modules
which run on top firmware/bare metal instead of the OS. I hope he will
be able to tell us more here...


Anyway, I would be more than happy if we could find better way generating
configs for the GRUB.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]