Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] x86/boot: create a C bundle for 32 bit boot code and use it

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 17/10/2024 11:58 am, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 4:05 PM Frediano Ziglio
> <frediano.ziglio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:25 PM Anthony PERARD
>> <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:33:32AM +0100, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 2:51 PM Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 05:32:26PM +0100, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 4:31 PM Anthony PERARD 
>>>>>> <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:53:28AM +0100, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>>>>>>>> +# generate final object file combining and checking above binaries
>>>>>>>> +$(obj)/built_in_32.S: $(obj)/built_in_32.other.bin 
>>>>>>>> $(obj)/built_in_32.final.bin
>>>>>>> So, "other" isn't part of "final", I don't really know what those two
>>>>>>> things contains so naming wise I can't suggest anything useful.
>>>>> Instead of "other", is "control" (like in science experiment where you
>>>>> have a control group), or "offseted" (which seems to be how this second
>>>>> binary is constructed) would be better names for this *.bin? It seems
>>>>> the script take both input and play the game of the 7 differences, to
>>>>> find clues about the location of some symbols, right?.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know the game and I think people not familiar with it won't
>>>> find new names more readable but less.
>>> Sorry, the "game" as nothing to do with the name I've proposed. I was
>>> just asking if the script take both *.bin and was looking for
>>> differences.
>>>
>>> (The game of 7 differences is simple: there's two similar pictures and
>>> you just look for the 7 differences between them, that's it.)
>>>
>>>> Not saying that current names are good, they just need to be located
>>>> at different addresses with some "magic" in the middle.
>>> Well to me "other" evoke a binary that contains functions that are not
>>> in "final", but instead they both contain the sames functions with
>>> slight variation of placement in the file (with added offset, gap), as I
>>> understand. But if you don't like my proposal, so be it.
>>>
>> What about "base" and "offsetted" ? I don't know why "offsetted"
>> sounds weird to me but I didn't find anything better. I hope some
>> native English speaker could come with a better proposal.
>>
> What about "base" and "bias"/"biased" ?

A plain "offset" would be fine in this context.

"offsetted" is indeed wrong English.

~Andrew