I guess I'll weigh in here...
Personally I prefer Intel syntax, but that alone is not a good reason to
keep it Intel. However, I have spent many hours (measured in man-months
actually) testing, debugging, and stepping through this boot sector code
(both on real hardware and simulators/emulators)
Err, nice to call ppl idiots who try to get the project further...
If there are bugs, feel free to fix them...
Am 02.09.2010 21:17, schrieb Alex Ionescu:
This is retarded, GAS supports Intel syntax. Why did this require
rewriting everything in ATT syntax and introducing bugs? And what's
up
I'm anti-ATT syntax guy too :)
WBR,
Aleksey.
P.S. Nice to see Alex's post here, in his good old style.
--
From: Daniel Reimer daniel.rei...@reactos.org
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 11:33 PM
To: ReactOS Development List ros-dev@reactos.org
What was the reason for the change?
It would be preferable to keep everything in intel syntax. Especially as
this is an NT OS.
It should also be noted that this is in a branch, not trunk.
Ged.
-Original Message-
From: ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] On
It was a quick hack while Amine waits for a proper conversion from Timo.
It's not meant to stay.
___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Alex Ionescu wrote:
This is retarded,
That's your opinion.
Why did this require rewriting everything in ATT syntax and introducing
bugs?
It doesn't. Noone said it does.
And what's up with calling ATT syntax GAS Syntax.
Yes, what's up with that?
I wonder what Brian would say
And btw: the one who did the mistake was one of our newest developers,
Arty, who might still lack of experience in the field of programming.
Let's hope he didn't make 5 more old developers leave now ;-)
___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
