in the process.
-Original Message-
From: ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:54 AM
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] freeldr
I googled for Alex Ionescu and Brian Palmer.
First link:
http
support?
-Original Message-
From: ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:19 AM
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] freeldr
Last time I tried to do this Brian Palmer went ape-shit :)
Best
It seems there are some severe technical limitations to a PE FreeLoader.
Unless there are good reasons for it to remain a PE file (and I don't think
easier debugging is a good reason), I would like to see the PE changes to
FreeLoader reverted.
-Original Message-
From:
Message-
From: ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Timo Kreuzer
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:33 PM
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Unable to use FreeLDR
Brian Palmer schrieb:
It seems there are some severe technical
Breaking the boot into multiple stages would certainly fix the problem, and
as long as it gets implemented the PE version of FreeLoader should be fine.
But I do have to wonder if we'll then see a push to make the first-stage
boot code into a PE file also to make it easier to debug? (sorry, I
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)
Since fathelp was already in Intel syntax originally, why did we require a
new version from another branch? What was changed?
-Original Message-
From: ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Sylvain Petreolle
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:50 AM
