search for: 1440kib

Hello, I wanted to ask if there's a reason efi/wrapper.{h,c} use __uint*_t instead of including stdint.h and using the therein defined uint*_t types? This breaks compilation of the efi blobs on systems with the musl libc since that doesn't define __uint*_t types. -- Simon Thelen

...fi blobs on systems with the musl > libc since that doesn't define __uint*_t types. > > -- > Simon Thelen FWIW... As a simple quick basic test, I took the efi32 binaries (syslinux.efi and ldlinux.e32, version 6.04-pre1) from alpinelinux (which uses musl) and put them in a FAT 1440KiB floppy image using the default UEFI path. While booting a VM with such floppy image in EFI mode, I arrive to the syslinux boot prompt. I have not attempted to execute any kernel, nor any c32 module, but the most basic functionality (i.e. booting to the boot prompt) worked, so I assume that the...

> A simple test would suffice: execute the official installer and compare > the "new" ldlinux.sys file (that the installer just put there) with the > original one included in the official archive. This simple test could > be performed on an empty, FAT12-formatted 1440KiB floppy image. Will do. Makes sense. It will show the difference, although not how it works. > People interested in boot code and low-level languages should take a > look at Daniel Sedory's The Starman's Realm - I know, I know... I > already mentioned it. I wish I had asked you a...

...I'm testing version 4.06-pre5. Using the CONFIG + APPEND directive with RELATIVE paths and changing the base directory is sometimes failing. Booting with ISOLINUX is OK but SYSLINUX is not. To demonstrate an example, I have uploaded a little 7z archive containing: _ a little ISO image; _ a 1440KiB floppy image. Both images have the same directory tree and cfg files. The only difference is the respective boot loader. My test: 1_ Boot the ISO image in a VM. 2_ First menu ; press "enter" 3_ Second menu ; press "enter" 4_ Third menu ; press "enter" 5_ Note the exa...

On 07/08/2014 05:55 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 07/08/2014 03:05 PM, Alexander Perlis wrote: >> >> Question: what's special about the transition from 8203KiB to 8204KiB? >> Both have CHS=8/64/32 and both involve a fractional end cylinder. > > Fractional cylinders with floppy disks is almost certainly a very bad thing. > Agreed, but that doesn't appear to

> You might want to read Wikipedia's articles about "FAT32" and "Design of the FAT file system", Good pointer. I spent far far too long on that page figuring out how fat32 is designed. But the reserved sectors, there is the key. > reserved sectors Right! Immediately after the FSIS before the FAT.And it usually is 32 sectors for fat32. Take off the VBR and the FSIS,