OpenBIOS

openbios@openbios.org

4284 discussions

Re: [OpenBIOS] BIOS call guides?
by Pavel Machek 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

Hi! > Could somebody point me to where I could find a list of all the BIOS > calls? I know I've seen them before, but I am coming up blank now. Ralf Brown's Interrupt list? > If I'm gonna start to think about coding, I have to know what to > code :) Do you want to write it in assembly or in C? How are you going to deal with 32 bit code? -- I'm really pavel(a)atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-). --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

2 1

Re: A Plan. (was Re: Some Questions and ideas for gnu-bios)
by Pavel Machek 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

Hi! > > I think we can assume pentiums at the least since only the pent > > m/b's and above really have flashable bois's. So why not go for a pent > > optimised compiler and maybe have someone check the asm producded <evil > > grin> > > personally, i think the gnu-bios should be done in 100% assembly, > for I do not think so. Well, it would be cleaner to write in assembly, but you do not want to write neither bios setup nor grub in anything else than C. And if you stick with gcc 2.7.2, compilers are ok. Pavel -- I'm really pavel(a)atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-). --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

1 0

Re: A Plan. (was Re: Some Questions and ideas for gnu-bios)
by Pavel Machek 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

Hi! > > Right - that's enough of the theoretical waffle. What we need is a plan. Lots > > and lots of these projects have died out because people spent too long talking > > about them and did bugger all work. > > Well it's ony been a few days.... : > > > > I'd like to see a _really_ primitive skeleton BIOS up and running - just > > enough to boot Linux, with no chipset handling or anything. > > I was thinking about this. IMO if you put grub stage1 + 2 in the flash that > just may be enough. Hmm. I took a look at grub, and it is pretty ugly. I patched it quite a bit. -- I'm really pavel(a)atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-). --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

1 0

compiler speed
by Stefan Reinauer 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

Hi, I played a bit with different gcc versions on Alpha and I noticed that when executing the FIB test from http://home.iae.nl/users/mhx/fib.html in paflof, results are _a lot_ slower with gcc 3.1.1 than with 2.96 (SuSE 7.1 Alpha release) Not only is the 3.1.1 binary about 20% bigger, it also 22% slower. The test: HEX : FIB ( x -- y ) RECURSIVE DUP 2 > IF DUP 1- RECURSE SWAP 2- RECURSE + EXIT THEN DROP 1 ; 28 FIB BYE The results: gcc 2.96 binary real 1m55.642s user 1m55.479s sys 0m0.014s gcc 3.1.1 binary real 2m21.763s user 2m21.533s sys 0m0.027s Where does this come from? Is the code generated by gcc 3.x really that slow, compared to 2.96? Do we make some assumptions that might cause this? (How badly do gotos break code flow analysis for example?) What can we do against this? Having more prim words will speed up the whole thing, but probably not really make it easier for the compiler to optimize. Comments? Stefan.. -- The x86 isn't all that complex - it just doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Mike Johnson, Leader of 80x86 Design at AMD Microprocessor Report (1994) - To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo(a)freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message http://www.freiburg.linux.de/OpenBIOS/ - free your system..

3 7

Jump to page: