[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port) |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:33:33 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 03:08:19PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 20:50 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know why do we align ELF targets? When I did the coreboot port,
> > the ELF part was based on existing Ieee1275 code, so I guess I just mimicked
> > it. Is there some issue with non-i386 CPUs or with some Ieee1275
> > implementations that makes this alignment a requirement?
>
> It was a hack for PowerPC openfirmware. I don't know why it was needed.
> I didn't have time and desire to debug openfirmware to find out what it
> wants.
Is the hack you're referring to GRUB_MOD_GAP, GRUB_MOD_ALIGN or both?
Btw, I suspect GRUB_MOD_GAP might be related to the modules overlapping with
the BSS because of a firmware loader bug. Is there a correlation between
the needed GRUB_MOD_GAP and the BSS size?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
- [PATCH] i386-qemu port, Robert Millan, 2009/06/21
- does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Robert Millan, 2009/06/21
- Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/21
- Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port),
Robert Millan <=
- [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Robert Millan, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Robert Millan, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Robert Millan, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Robert Millan, 2009/06/22
- Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/22
- Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko, 2009/06/22
- Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/22