found it!
the problem was the LBPB() to load byte 0 from the pvd for comparsion.
i loaded it into rBX instead of rBL. found this out after dumping the
buffer and noticed that the contents where the same on t23 and amd
machine.
it all works now. tested on t23, bochs, and amd machine and its
blazi
nice. It's nice to see the spirit of assembly language hacking is not
being lost :-)
ron
i guess this email was for me. ;]
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:52 PM, wrote:
> found it!
>
> the problem was the LBPB() to load byte 0 from the pvd for comparsion.
> i loaded it into rBX instead of rBL. found this out after dumping the
> buffer and noticed that the contents where the same on t23 an
at what point do we cry uncle and write
an x86 16 bit loader/assembler?
- erik
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> nice. It's nice to see the spirit of assembly language hacking is not
> being lost :-)
>
> ron
>
>
I actually miss it a great deal. I did more of that in college though than
I've ever had to do professionally, and the rust is surely there on m
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:29 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> at what point do we cry uncle and write
> an x86 16 bit loader/assembler?
>
> - erik
>
> I'd rather have an EFI loader working for Plan 9, but that's because i've
got all these macs laying around now... (old 32bit iMac upstairs is just
dying
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:29 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> at what point do we cry uncle and write
> an x86 16 bit loader/assembler?
Never :-)
I still like the current approach because it works but at the same
time discourages people from using it :-)
ron
> Never :-)
>
> I still like the current approach because it works but at the same
> time discourages people from using it :-)
i'm sorry, but that's fairly silly.
should we also get rid of the
assembler because we want to
discourage its use? and clearly
we have successfully minimized
the amount
didn't russ write a 8086 assembler?
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> Never :-)
>>
>> I still like the current approach because it works but at the same
>> time discourages people from using it :-)
>
> i'm sorry, but that's fairly silly.
> should we also get rid of the
> as
If it matters that much just port nasm.
ron
On Thu Apr 8 15:06:21 EDT 2010, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
> If it matters that much just port nasm.
why would you prefer to port something
with an alien syntax into the system? also,
you'd need to link with regular .8s so at
the end of the day, it would be easier to
write 4a than to port nasm.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:35 AM, David Leimbach wrote:
> I wonder if it will boot with rEFIt though.
>
rEFIt is enough to fool all the other bootloaders.
i'm really sorry for this mail fuckup. that mail was intended to go
to muzgo. was too lazy to remember his email address so i usually
just search for muzgo in acme mail and clicked on the first hit and
changed subject and mail body and then hitting reply without noticing
the wrong address.
with
13 matches
Mail list logo
