Hi!
24--2004 09:34 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom ehlert) wrote to Arkady V.Belousov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ops, mistype. Should be:
te I HATE 'oops, mistype' style bugs introduced for no purpose into a
te working kernel.
NiP (Nobody is Perfect). Bart also sometime introduces silly bugs in
the
Hi!
Was:
__O\_/_\_/O__
int EnableHMA(VOID)
[...]
_DisableA20();
#ifdef DEBUG
if (fmemcmp(MK_FP(0x, 0x), MK_FP(0x, 0x0010), 128) != 0)
_
Hi!
- prototypes/comments cleanup.
---BeginMessage---
diff -ruNp old/kernel/intr.asm new/kernel/intr.asm
--- old/kernel/intr.asm 2004-05-23 13:02:00.0 +
+++ new/kernel/intr.asm 2004-05-24 17:29:46.0 +
@@ -94,7 +94,9 @@
segmentHMA_TEXT
-;; COUNT ASMPASCAL
Hi!
- fixed macros in portab.h: added extra parentesis around parameters;
- removed duplicated macro in exeflat.c.
---BeginMessage---
diff -ruNp old/hdr/portab.h new/hdr/portab.h
--- old/hdr/portab.h2004-05-09 17:24:02.0 +
+++ new/hdr/portab.h2004-05-24 21:31:58.0
Hi!
24--2004 21:34 Arkady V.Belousov wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
AVB +++ new/hdr/portab.h 2004-05-24 21:31:58.0 +
AVB #ifdef I86 /* commandline overflow - removing /DPROTO
AVB TE */
AVB #define PROTO
AVB #endif
BTW, I think, _all_ _remained_
Hi!
24--2004 20:16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom ehlert) wrote to Arkady V.Belousov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-#define LENGTH(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
+#define LENGTH(x) (sizeof (x)/sizeof *(x))
te (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0])) has worked for me for ~20 years now.
te could you please explain why this should be
Hi!
24--2004 18:39 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+++ config.c 24 May 2004 18:39:49 - 1.87
UWORD GetBiosKey(int timeout)
@@ -752,26 +749,19 @@
+ if (timeout = 0) do
{
r.a.x = 0x0100; /* are there keys available ? */
Hello Arkady,
In above case at first glance I don't see possibilities to break
integrity ([] have top most priority over other operations), but this not
mean, that such case can't be constructed by some smart man, which knows
language even better.
another 10 points to get plonked.
Hi!
24--2004 22:14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom ehlert) wrote to Arkady V.Belousov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
te the original code reads:
te if (GetBiosTime() - startTime (unsigned)timeout * 18)
tebreak;
te and now I want to get an example when this breaks.
For example, set timeout 30
Hello Tom,
+if ((unsigned)(GetBiosTime() - startTime) = timeout * 18u)
+ return 0x;
}
+ while (r.flags FLG_ZERO);
This is not good way to calculate delays - around midnight (when system
timer will be reset) above expression will be calculated wrongly (because
Hi!
24--2004 22:15 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom ehlert) wrote to Arkady V.Belousov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In above case at first glance I don't see possibilities to break
integrity ([] have top most priority over other operations), but this not
mean, that such case can't be constructed by some
Hello Bart,
if (GetBiosTime() - startTime (unsigned)timeout * 18)
break;
Menu timeout set at 10 seconds. Boot kernel with menu at 23:59:55.
Timer expires at 00:00:00 (0-1.5M = very large number)
and that's exactly the wanted behaviour.
instead of 00:00:05.
but it times out,
Hi Tom,
Menu timeout set at 10 seconds. Boot kernel with menu at 23:59:55.
Timer expires at 00:00:00 (0-1.5M = very large number)
and that's exactly the wanted behaviour.
is it? At least the comment doesn't say so, maybe it was in your head
though.
instead of 00:00:05.
and to wait
13 matches
Mail list logo
