search for: l349

...n to these matters, while at the same time mention that I'm simply gonna pass on those, since they appear irrelevant with regards to the context that matters in my application... Regards, /Pete [1] https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/b9caf8b6058de12bf028f907471561a6aa50f7e9/src/format.c#L349-L366

...d but not necessary (indicating a user/tool that isn't being cautious), consider throwing a warning while still allowing the install and returning a success to the caller of the installer. > [1] > https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/ade5639c0047ee813f71a8bfef8b1cc7be551009/src/format.c#L349-L377 > [2] http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/filesystems/fat.html > [3] http://pierrelib.pagesperso-orange.fr/filesystems/fat16.html -- -Gene

...reak Syslinux installation. So it may still be worth relaxing the check especially if, as Ady pointed out, not having all sectors addressable doesn't make a disk any less valid. Regards, /Pete [1] https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/ade5639c0047ee813f71a8bfef8b1cc7be551009/src/format.c#L349-L377 [2] http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/filesystems/fat.html [3] http://pierrelib.pagesperso-orange.fr/filesystems/fat16.html

...cannot be fit into 32 bits. >>> >>> >>> >>> But R8 is a 64bit register, isn't it?? >>> >>> >>> This 64bit register R8 is reflected here: >>> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/Target/X86/X86RegisterInfo.td#L349 >>> >>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> --artem// >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fr...

Hi Ady, I won't comment on the reasons why the original computation was wrong, but thanks for the detailed analysis. On 2016.02.26 08:05, Ady via Syslinux wrote: >> Thus we can finally get a formula for Fs that satisfies the above: >> >> Fs = (To - Rs + Nf * Cs) / ((Ss * Cs / Fe) + Nf) + 1 > > I believe such formula is slightly inaccurate too. > > My

...be worth relaxing the check especially if, as Ady pointed out, not > having all sectors addressable doesn't make a disk any less valid. > > Regards, > > /Pete > > > [1] > https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/ade5639c0047ee813f71a8bfef8b1cc7be551009/src/format.c#L349-L377 > [2] http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/filesystems/fat.html > [3] http://pierrelib.pagesperso-orange.fr/filesystems/fat16.html I would like to point out that being able to allocate / address at least the whole Data Area is indeed the "common" way of calculatin...

Hi Ady, On 2016.02.25 02:08, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > There is an "extra" sector, in comparison to... what exactly? Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I implied that the Large FAT32 fat size had an extra sector compared to minfatsize, when of course I meant the opposite (the Large FAT32 has one less sector than the minfatsize computed by the unpatched code, hence the check