Re: [Freedos-kernel] Borland C 386 bug

2004-02-11 Thread Bart Oldeman
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote: > ...and everywhere where fmemcpy is called? But isn't it better to fix > fmemcpy itself?! the problem here is that fmemcpy wasn't broken, so your fix is not a fix, just a workaround. Yes, it affects the high word of eax, but that is not a bug in its

[Freedos-kernel] re: GPL and other licenses - and heavy duty debugging tools

2004-02-11 Thread Eric Auer
Hi, a bit of clarification: For small projects, I do not care. So I place them into public domain. For bigger projects I prefer GPL because it protects the sources, keeping them OPEN and FREE. If I had to use another license, I would prefer a shorter one, as explained, and one with an "anti mi

Re: [Freedos-kernel] GPL and other licenses - and heavy duty debugging tools

2004-02-11 Thread Michael Devore
>Now about licenses: >There are some nice short licenses like X11/Expat/BSD'/Artistic'/ >Perl. Check the list on the gnu.org pages for more details. >And of course there is public domain. Public domain is fine for >small programs (like my CPULEVEL one). However, it does not protect >anything. Some

Re: [Freedos-kernel] Borland C 386 bug

2004-02-11 Thread Luchezar Georgiev
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:28:17 + (GMT), Bart Oldeman wrote: Well I see no bug in this fmemcpy. Bug - no, but it does use EAX which probably conflicts with something else later. If I remove EAX use, it works! One other thing I can imagine being a problem is that some device drivers or programs y

Re: [Freedos-kernel] Borland C 386 bug

2004-02-11 Thread Bart Oldeman
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote: > INIT_FMEMCPY: |INIT_FMEMCPY: > enter 8,0|pushBP > mov DX,4[BP] |mov BP,SP > mov EAX,0Ah[BP]|

Re: [Freedos-kernel] Borland C 386 bug

2004-02-11 Thread Luchezar Georgiev
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:09:16 + (GMT), Bart Oldeman wrote: at this place entry.obj for your Borland compilation *must* have ror eax,16 push ax ror eax,16 Indeed, it DOES have it! However from the makefiles I conclude this code should be present.

[Freedos-kernel] GPL and other licenses - and heavy duty debugging tools

2004-02-11 Thread Eric Auer
Hi Lucho, Tom, others, I think before we all start buying SoftICE (yes, it is a bit old but seems to be very useful), try something else: BOCHS. http://bochs.sourceforge.net/ or something... Bochs has a BUILTIN debugger. Like you start Bochs on a Windows or Linux shell window (DOS box, xterm, ...)

Re: [Freedos-kernel] Borland C 386 bug

2004-02-11 Thread tom ehlert
Lucho, feel free to send me a non-working kernel, if you can't make the SIce:boot trick work. tom --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse

Re: [Freedos-kernel] Borland C 386 bug

2004-02-11 Thread Bart Oldeman
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote: > I didn't check because I don't know what to check. Browsed entry.asm and > understood nothing. Do apply your ideas and I'll be serving as a "live > compiler", as I'm obviously only good for that. try to disassemble entry.obj. Around line 220, entry.

Re: [Freedos-kernel] Borland C 386 bug

2004-02-11 Thread tom ehlert
Hello Luchezar, >> My god - what a sad story. >> >> boot a kernel that works. >> load device=softice. >> insert floppy with bad kernel. >> >> SIce>boot >> >> SIce still is in memory, and will popup at the faulting instruction, >> or you can insert some int(3) to trace the offending code. LG> Sorr

[Freedos-kernel] Borland C 386 bug

2004-02-11 Thread Luchezar Georgiev
Salve, As I again don't receive messages from the kernel mailing list, I again had to wade through the web interface to find the critics below, and suddently SF said it's in read-only mode, so I guess it's in big trouble now :-( I'm sorry but I think that's a hack^2. Since you have absolutely no

[Freedos-kernel] Your message to UDLR awaits moderator approval

2004-02-11 Thread udlr-admin
Your mail to 'UDLR' with the subject TEST Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decisi