sserap...@svn.reactos.org wrote:
Add definitions for the x86bios emulator.
http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=studies/windows/km/hal/api/x86bi
os/index.htm
From the link: The HAL in x86 builds of Windows Vista introduces a set of
functions for accessing the 16-bit firmware that Windows
Prove it.
On 2009-12-30, at 7:48 AM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
Also there is documentation for
the newer interface available and it's usable for x86 later, too.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
Prove what? That there's documentation or that it's usable for x86, too?
Or is that a coding challenge?
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Prove it.
On 2009-12-30, at 7:48 AM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
Also there is documentation for
the newer interface available and it's usable for x86 later, too.
-Original Message-
From: ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of KJK::Hyperion
Post them on bugzilla, assign them to me and Cc sginsb...@reactos.org
Well, I submitted my first bug patch to bugzilla.
Before I submit more, I'd like to know if I did
The services are undocumented and reserved for EFI.
They are not Documented and there's no reason to use the Vista implementation.
On 2009-12-30, at 11:42 AM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
Prove what? That there's documentation or that it's usable for x86, too?
Or is that a coding challenge?
Alex
I recommend changing the convention such that Descriptor is a pointer to the
pointer -- this way the functions can remain one-liners and not introduce
register side-effects (especially since you're choosing ebx -- trashing a
nonvolatile).
On 2009-12-30, at 11:46 AM, Jose Catena wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=safarirls=enq=%22x86BiosCall%22+site%3Amicrosoft.comaq=foq=aqi=
Your search - x86BiosCall site:microsoft.com - did not match any documents.
bash-3.2$ grep -ir 'x86BiosCall' /ntdev/headers/ --include *.h --include *.c
bash-3.2$
Your turn.
On 2009-12-30,
Dear ReactOS Members,
We'd like to issue you our warmest holiday greetings and a happy new year!
Withal, receive our cordial gratitude for the recent work on getting the ARM
tree building again as well as for extending support for Windows and Mac OS X
build systems throughout this troubled
LOL, I love that I couldn't find any documentation on MSDN and in some
arbitrary collection of headers, so it must not exist.
I also never talked about MS provided documentation. 3rd party
documentation still qualifies as documentation and it's better than
nothing, if not even better than a lot
Good question. I wonder, too. Problem could be that this patch forces
ppl to use a new RosBE. At least last time i tried, it broke gcc 4.1.X
build.
Alex Ionescu schrieb:
Hi,
As far as I am aware, GCC 4.4.x now works on Linux through RosBE 1.5 (minus
some missing patches for 64-bit hosts),
Forcing people to use a new RosBE is a *good* thing.
On 2009-12-31, at 12:15 AM, Daniel Reimer wrote:
Good question. I wonder, too. Problem could be that this patch forces
ppl to use a new RosBE. At least last time i tried, it broke gcc 4.1.X
build.
Alex Ionescu schrieb:
Hi,
As far
Sure it is. But explain this to the lazy bums out there :-P
Nah, honestly, I dont think theres a real reason except the big step
having to update gcc.
Alex Ionescu schrieb:
Forcing people to use a new RosBE is a *good* thing.
On 2009-12-31, at 12:15 AM, Daniel Reimer wrote:
Good
12 matches
Mail list logo
