search for: libfat_sector_t

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...