2Marco Gerards
My mistake. Please read first line as "Because it requires to load 32-bit file..."Ruslan Nikolaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why can't you test for the regparam=3 bug?
Because it requires to build 32-bit file. As I said before this patch will work even the OS can't load 32-bit
> I have no idea which patch is better, so please decide it with Marco.
I also can't say what is better. However my patch already works perfectly on my x86_64 machine with Linux w/o 32-bit binaries support. All compiled utilities are 64-bit. Chainloading, multiboot and linux loading working. The pa
> Why can't you test for the regparam=3 bug?
Because it requires to build 32-bit file. As I said before this patch will work even the OS can't load 32-bit executables at all. I'm not sure about compiling it as a 64-bit file because it generates another code; moreover x86_64 accepts regparam=6. Pe
Timothy Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Timothy,
> Firstly I apologise for my absence due to a personal reason, I'd rather not
> into in this list, other than to say that my first full time job is only part
> of the reason.
It's nice that you are back and working on the RISC OS port aga
Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Guillem,
> The grub_str* functions are taking 'char *' arguments, but in some
> cases in the code they are given 'usigned char *' for example. 'char'
> is not guaranteed to be signed or usigned on a given architecture, so
> for strings it should not be
Ruslan Nikolaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Ruslan,
> I have seen another patch for amd64 by Marco Gerards. In fact month
> ago I sent the patch that also allows compiling on x86_64.
Right, I sent in this new patch because I don't like changing LD and
CC the way you do and because there were
On Wednesday 21 September 2005 01:10 am, Ruslan Nikolaev wrote:
> I have seen another patch for amd64 by Marco Gerards. In fact month ago I
> sent the patch that also allows compiling on x86_64.
I have no idea which patch is better, so please decide it with Marco.
However, your assignment is not
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 04:17:04PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
> What I didn't do is testing the result on an AMD64 box, I will do that
> later (it means rebooting my desktop, which I prefer not to do that
> often...). There are some warnings on the AMD64 that do not show up
> on the PC. I h
