Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "libfat_sector_t".
2016 Mar 06
3
[PATCH 3/5] installers: MSVC compatibility fixes
Hi Shao,
You're right, "a=b=<immediate value>;" wasn't the actual issue.
On 2016.03.06 20:34, Shao Miller via Syslinux wrote:
> If this change is simply due to a mental note about an incident where a
> compiler once complained about this type of thing
The problem was due to the following warning when compiling for 64-bit
using using the latest WDK (7600.16385.1),
2007 Apr 05
0
Patch: Add io.c functions, and vfat library
...an hook my own
read_handler for any partition on any disk, and use libfat to read
files off it. Here is an example:
typedef struct filedesc {
diskinfo* disk_info;
part_entry* partition;
} filedesc;
static filedesc rFd;
static int fat_disk_read_handle(intptr_t fdp, void* buf, size_t nbyte,
libfat_sector_t sector)
{
filedesc* fd = (filedesc*) fdp;
int num_sectors = nbyte / LIBFAT_SECTOR_SIZE;
int status;
sector += fd->partition->start_lba;
status = syslinux_read_disk(fd->disk_info, buf, sector, num_sectors);
return (status) ? 0 : nbyte;
}
and in some function like main()...
2016 Mar 07
0
[PATCH 3/5] installers: MSVC compatibility fixes
...nd other strict modes of translation in Microsoft's and others' C
implementations are enjoyable, except when they're not. I agree that
it'd be nice to translate in every [worthy and] targeted implementation
without incident.
Regarding [4]: The code expects that the shifted 'libfat_sector_t' value
will certainly fit in the 31 value bits of an 'int32_t'. The logic
prior to that might even prove it, but we'd have to follow such things
as whether or not 'fs->clustshift' is sanity-checked, etc.
If the warning is ugly and the cast is ugly, there are other so...
2016 Mar 07
1
[PATCH 3/5] installers: MSVC compatibility fixes
...of translation in Microsoft's and others' C
> implementations are enjoyable, except when they're not. I agree that it'd
> be nice to translate in every [worthy and] targeted implementation without
> incident.
>
> Regarding [4]: The code expects that the shifted 'libfat_sector_t' value
> will certainly fit in the 31 value bits of an 'int32_t'. The logic prior to
> that might even prove it, but we'd have to follow such things as whether or
> not 'fs->clustshift' is sanity-checked, etc.
>
> If the warning is ugly and the cast is ugl...