Hi!
26--2004 11:24 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Bart, what wrong wit my latest patches for batch files and for sources?
They are small and they are tested - which reason to silently reject them?
BO not rejected, just haven't got around to look at them
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
Hi!
26-íÁÒ-2004 19:33 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And let me remind you two more bugs, which you don't fix yet: first one
is in INT 21/6C (lost check for nonzero AL)
BO that's not a bug, we discussed
Hi!
26--2004 22:09 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is bug. When Lucho says that this is patch from me, I quote him my
letter where was _not_ sayed, that check for AL should be removed - there
was discussed only checks for DL.
BO That's a
Hi!
26--2004 21:24 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...] bugs, which you don't fix yet: first one is in INT 21/6C (lost
check for nonzero AL)
LG I already wrote you: This is NOT a bug -
What you wrote to me was: You probably forgot about that. Check for
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:22:59 +0300 (MSK), Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
PS: Just checked TechHelp: it says nothing about AL, only AH=6C.
Definitely bug in RBIL. :(
MS-DOS technical reference defines AL=0 as reserved
(http://www.clipx.net/ng/dos5/ng1ff99.php). We already discussed this
issue last
