Am Mittwoch, den 07.10.2009, 23:13 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> (grub_cpuid_has_longmode): ... this. Update all users. Remove
> `unsigned' attribute.
I think that should be `static' not `unsigned':
-static unsigned char has_longmode = 0;
+unsigned char grub_cpuid_has_longmode
2009/10/8 Bean :
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> 2009/10/7 Michal Suchanek :
>>> 2009/10/7 Bean :
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Michal Suchanek
wrote:
> This might make switching the direction of a panel more difficult but
> there may be other issu
2009/10/8 Bean :
> Hi,
>
> Update:
>
> Rename position to extend, values are:
> first: extend the first child widget (near)
> all: extend all children widgets
> last: extend the last child widget (far), this is default value if not set
>
> For example:
> direction = left_to_right
> extend = all
>
>
Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 07.10.2009, 23:13 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
>
>
>> (grub_cpuid_has_longmode): ... this. Update all users. Remove
>> `unsigned' attribute.
>>
>
> I think that should be `static' not `unsigned':
>
> -static unsigned char has_longmod
Bogdan wrote:
> Most probably the developers of GRUB will say that this is useless but
> did anyone think of adding 16-bit protected mode support to the
> Multiboot specification and to GRUB?
Which mode do you mean?
protected mode=32-bit mode
You may mean vm8086 mode but it's meant only for compati
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> 2, You should use far position as you want to extend the widget at the
>> far side (top).
>
> This dependency is a problem. The rules for creating a working layout
> are then complicated and hard to understand.
>
> Also I have no idea why I
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> I am not sure this is the right approach.
>
> Style writers should be free to style any widget without special
> support in the widget.
Hi,
The style property is parsed by the menu system, no special handling
for individual widgets.
>
> I
2009/10/8 Bean :
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> I am not sure this is the right approach.
>>
>> Style writers should be free to style any widget without special
>> support in the widget.
>
> Hi,
>
> The style property is parsed by the menu system, no special handling
>
2009/10/8 Bean :
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> 2, You should use far position as you want to extend the widget at the
>>> far side (top).
>>
>> This dependency is a problem. The rules for creating a working layout
>> are then complicated and hard to understand.
>>
>>
>Index: include/grub/i386/cpuid.h
>===
>--- include/grub/i386/cpuid.h (revision 0)
>+++ include/grub/i386/cpuid.h (revision 0)
This file doesn't follow convention of having an ifdef around the file
>+extern unsigned char grub_cpuid
I'm sorry for the top-down mail but Yahoo! Mail is gay. No, I don't mean
virtual 8086 mode, I mean the 16-bit protected mode - which is 16-bit and not
32-bit. Protected mode was introduced on the Intel 80286 which was still a
16-bit CPU. Protected mode was later extended for 32-bit allowing of c
Quoting Bogdan, who wrote the following on Thu, 8 Oct 2009:
I'm sorry for the top-down mail but Yahoo! Mail is gay. No, I don't mean
virtual 8086 mode, I mean the 16-bit protected mode - which is 16-bit and
not 32-bit. Protected mode was introduced on the Intel 80286 which was still
a 16-bit
Bogdan wrote:
> I'm sorry for the top-down mail but Yahoo! Mail is gay. No, I don't mean
> virtual 8086 mode, I mean the 16-bit protected mode - which is 16-bit and not
> 32-bit. Protected mode was introduced on the Intel 80286 which was still a
> 16-bit CPU. Protected mode was later extended fo
The difference is basically that you have no paging, the linear address is the
same as the physical address, no virtual 8086 mode, no way of going back to
real mode, the segment address inside the descriptor table is 24 bits wide and
the limit is 16 bits wide.
In response to Seth - there are st
Bogdan wrote:
> The difference is basically that you have no paging, the linear address is
> the same as the physical address, no virtual 8086 mode, no way of going back
> to real mode, the segment address inside the descriptor table is 24 bits wide
> and the limit is 16 bits wide.
>
> In respon
I will need to look into any problems related with 16-bit code. ELF itself is
not a problem - for instance binutils can work with 16-bit ELFs even if the
standard doesn't actually define them. The Multiboot specification also lets
people use other formats (e.g., a.out or plain binaries) so that
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> 2009/10/8 Bean :
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
2, You should use far position as you want to extend the widget at the
far side (top).
>>>
>>> This dependency is a problem. The rules for creating a worki
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> 2009/10/8 Bean :
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> I am not sure this is the right approach.
>>>
>>> Style writers should be free to style any widget without special
>>> support in the widget.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The
18 matches
Mail list logo
