Am 28.02.2012 23:06, schrieb Marc Jones:
> I found this bug building tint with libpayload. libpayload is built
> with defconfig and using the same coreboot crosstools gcc. The bug
> happens in the first call to alloc() when the first header of the
> first region is installed. The header memory location is checked,
> found to be 0, and then loaded with the header. The bug is that the
> original value of the location is used after the memory was updated.
> It should have been reloaded. It is pretty easy to see in the
> disassembly below.
workaround: mark setup() __attribute__((noinline))
The proper fix is to clean up the various casts so the aliasing based
optimizations in gcc do the right thing.
I would like to test coreboot on my PC, as I trust opensource far more than proprietary and besides the official BIOS for my MB has a couple o infuriating bugs (*) that drive me crazy. My MB is Gigabyte's GA-8I945PL-G v1.x and I am using the latest F8 BIOS. I could not find this model on the supported list, but I can see that the chipsets (945PL/IHC7) are! Is it possible to support my MB and try out coreboot on it? Thanx in advance :)
(*) First, if I enable the onboard NIC PXE BIOS by checking "Enable boot from LAN" in BIOS settings, I can not enter the BIOS setup anymore - I have to clear the CMOS. The second one is not considered a bug, but a feature : the BIOS creates an HPA on the HD and saves a copy of itself there to facilitate recovery just in case...
the following patch was just integrated into master:
Author: Mathias Krause <mathias.krause(a)secunet.com>
Date: Thu Mar 1 13:57:20 2012 +0100
Remove unused LZMA implementation
This patch complements commit 466dbb3 ("Adapt filo to libpayload
changes") by also removing the stale LZMA implementation, which is no
longer needed. We're using the libpayload based CBFS support since.
Signed-off-by: Mathias Krause <mathias.krause(a)secunet.com>
Build-Tested: build bot (Jenkins) at Thu Mar 1 14:16:20 2012, giving +1
Reviewed-By: Peter Stuge <peter(a)stuge.se> at Thu Mar 1 15:42:37 2012, giving +2
See http://review.coreboot.org/689 for details.