Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

build boot1.efi for i386 as well
ClosedPublic

Authored by emaste on Apr 6 2015, 5:38 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Nov 20, 9:58 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 26 2024, 1:50 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 26 2024, 1:49 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 26 2024, 1:49 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 26 2024, 1:38 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 30 2024, 2:03 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 12 2024, 1:34 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 10 2024, 11:21 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

Loader still needs more work but boot1 builds now.
This builds on D2241.

Diff Detail

Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped

Event Timeline

emaste retitled this revision from to build boot1.efi for i386 as well.
emaste updated this object.
emaste edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
emaste added reviewers: imp, andrew.
emaste added subscribers: rpaulo, adrian.
emaste added inline comments.
sys/boot/efi/boot1/Makefile
43

i386 needs it for __divdi3, will either remove the explicit fn from the comment, or list both arm and i386 examples

sys/boot/efi/boot1/generate-fat.sh
23

yay consistency

sys/boot/efi/boot1/Makefile
43

Isn't that just because we're compiling i386 with -msoft-float? We probably don't need to do that for i386.

sys/boot/efi/boot1/fat-i386.tmpl.bz2.uu
1

Why do we need these?

sys/boot/efi/boot1/Makefile
43

__divdi3 is 64 bit by 64 bit integer division, not fp.

sys/boot/efi/boot1/fat-i386.tmpl.bz2.uu
1

We need a FAT file system with boot1.efi in it, with a specified file name. We could do something a bit more fancy (and error-prone) than what we've got here, but the eventual plan is to add FAT support to makefs.

We'll probably only have four of these (i386, amd64, arm, arm64), so I'm not particularly interested in trying to come up with a hacky way to avoid having these.

sys/boot/efi/boot1/fat-i386.tmpl.bz2.uu
1

If we can get makefs to generate these, we'll be better off. Though we'll need to address the date/time issue for repeatable builds. Having these files in the tree goes rather against checking in binaries that could be built. lack of support in makefs is a good reason though.

In D2244#8, @imp wrote:

If we can get makefs to generate these, we'll be better off. Though we'll need to address the date/time issue for repeatable builds. Having these files in the tree goes rather against checking in binaries that could be built. lack of support in makefs is a good reason though.

Right, if we didn't want to check these in we'd need to have buildworld run as root and invoke mdconfig.

rpaulo added a reviewer: rpaulo.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Apr 6 2015, 11:00 PM
emaste updated this revision to Diff 4730.

Closed by commit rS281238 (authored by @emaste).