Subject: Re: stand/.../
To: Chris G. Demetriou <>
From: Simon Burge <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 04/06/1999 07:37:02
Chris G. Demetriou wrote:

> Simon Burge <> writes:
> > The Alpha doesn't use the bootprog_name[] variable, but at first glance
> > looks like to could be changed to do so.  However, the Alpha does add
> > the building OS revision to what it uses for bootprog_name[], which I
> > don't think is a bad thing either.
> The alpha used to use bootprog_name[].  I changed it last night to not
> do so, because it's _unnecessary_ to do so.
> There's no point in putting more in than has to be
> dynamically generated...

The only rebuttal against this I can think if is that it reduces the
amount of code we can share between ports (say sparc & sparc64, pmax
and newsmips, m68k*).  Given the nature of the programs we are talking
about, this may not be a sound argument.  If you can offer even the
flimsiest of arguments against that one (and mrg doesn't counter-strike)
then I'll drop bootprog_name[] ;-)