Am 08.05.11 17:49, schrieb Love Nystrom:
> [text]
dude, please stop changing the thread and the subject in every email
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/list
Hi Aleksey,
I'm sorry if my opinion came across as critique of the work as such.
It was definitely not intended that way.
I have great respect for all your efforts.
Just a point about unfortunate choice of AT&T syntax.
I would gladly volunteer to translate all old AT&T code to Intel.
After all,
Ok, sorry for not acknowledging the PXE code. Great work Hervé.
Sorry for nitpicking, but for me its similar to writing new C code that
uses gcc extensions (or gnu style indentation :)). We are in the process
of supporting MSVC builds, so we should start to get some kind of
compiler awareness
ksey.
From: Love Nystrom
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:40 PM
To: ros-dev@reactos.org
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] [freeldr] Add PXE "filesystem" (Ged Murphy)
Hi Ged,
Yes of course I read Hervé's mail.
I did not suggest that he should go about porting existing code, I just
expressed
yes yes, I'm going to do it.
But please don't cause even more work for me.
For the future: DO NOT USE AT&T SYNTAX FOR NEW ASM CODE!
Thanks.
___
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
s/boot/freeldr/freeldr/arch/i386/i386pxe.S (added)
>>>> +++ trunk/reactos/boot/freeldr/freeldr/arch/i386/i386pxe.S [iso-8859-1]
>>>> Sun May 1 08:11:43 2011
>>>> @@ -1,0 +1,97 @@
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * FreeLoader
>>>> + * Copyright (C)
Did you read Herves email??
Are you volunteering to convert all the files he mentioned into intel
syntax?
From: ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Love Nystrom
Sent: 03 May 2011 16:36
To: ros-dev@reactos.org
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] [freeldr] Add
Hi Hervé,
No disrespect for your work, but I'm inclined to concur with Timo regrading
AT&T vs. Intel.
Even though I usually preach "don't fix it if it isn't broken', I really
think that AT&T syntax
is broken by design, and we should use only Intel assembly, which is *much*
clearer.
After all, we
