Ros-dev

ros-dev@reactos.org

5788 discussions

by Johannes Olofsson

Does it really matter if people enable it or not if we still provide the functionality? /Johannes Olofsson > Till: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org> > Rubrik: Re: [ros-dev] Patent on FAT > Datum: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:57:50 -0500 > Hi, > > I think we should turn off the 8.3 short filename support by default > and see what breaks. Providing a option right at the start of 2nd > stage step "Patented features" using a checkbox to enable it should > get us around the issue. Its not our problem if someone else enables > it. > > -- > Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer > > "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and > that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev(a)reactos.org > <a > href=http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev>http://www.reactos.org/ > mailman/listinfo/ros-dev</a>

18 years, 8 months

RE: [ros-dev] Patent on FAT

by Murphy, Ged (Bolton)

nitro2k01 wrote: > I haven't seen the patant documents, but doesn't this mean that any > file system which stores both long and short file names on the same > volume would be theoreticlly affected? > No. Long files names were incorporated into unix systems long before the days FAT, or even DOS. This patent (if correct) is linked to FAT only. If is true, it would effect many things, but I can't see Microsoft enforcing it, it would alienate themselves. Just the fact that it is there is a problem for ReactOS though, even if they don't do anything about it. I haven't been able to find a copy of the patent yet. AFAIK, it was only released today. Ged. ************************************************************************ The information contained in this message or any of its attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk <mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message. Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries. Further information can be found at www.exide.com

18 years, 8 months

Could someone look at bug 1263?? Please?

by WaxDragon

I've seen this bugcheck several times debugging various things. At the moment, it reproducible following the steps in the bug. This has been around for a while and it aid me greatly to have it fixed. http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1263 WD -- <Alex_Ionescu> it's like saying let's rename Ke to Kernel because people think it's Ketchup

18 years, 8 months

RE: [ros-dev] Patent on FAT

by Murphy, Ged (Bolton)

Murphy, Ged (Bolton) wrote: > > I'm reading reports of a US patent on FAT. > Link: http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447 .html?part=rss&tag=6025447&subj=news ************************************************************************ The information contained in this message or any of its attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk <mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message. Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries. Further information can be found at www.exide.com

18 years, 8 months

Re: [ros-diffs] [gedmurphy] 20773: - popup menu on right click

by Thomas Weidenmueller

gedmurphy(a)svn.reactos.org wrote: > + case NM_RCLICK: you should use WM_CONTEXTMENU instead so the menus are also accessible by using the keyboard. - Thomas

18 years, 8 months

Dev blogs

by Murphy, Ged (Bolton)

I'd quite like to see the blog page integrated into the site and made to look pretty. I also think it might entice devs to start using the thing. At the moment there is only about 4 people listed, and of those only Alex every actually uses it. Would developers make an effort to start blogging if it was 'spruced up' and integrated? If not, I think it should be removed as it looks a bit pitiful as it is and gives the impression not much is going on (which is obviously not the case) It doesn't always have to be development related stuff in there. Anything interesting draws a crowd. Ged. ************************************************************************ The information contained in this message or any of its attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk <mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message. Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries. Further information can be found at www.exide.com

18 years, 8 months

Re: [ros-bugs] [Bug 1264] Use of pentium-class instructions

by Jerry

I would have to agree with this. ReactOS.Bugzilla(a)reactos.org wrote: >http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1264 > > > > > >------- Additional Comments From gvg(a)reactos.org 2006-01-10 19:07 CET ------- >I'd prefer something along the lines of: > >FooBarFast: > non-486 implementation > >FooBar486: > 486 implementation > >FooBarInit: > Store either FooBarFast or FooBar486 in FooBarPtr > >FooBarPtr: > .long FooBarInit > > .global ExfFooBar >ExfFooBar: > jmp [FooBarPtr] > >No self modifying code, at the expense of an indirect jump > > >

18 years, 8 months

Strategy for invalid parameters

by M Bealby

I was just taking a look at some ReactOS code this evening and it got me thinking about what our general strategy for handling invalid parameters is. For example, in kernel32.dll there is a function DebugBreakProcess. This function takes one parameter, a process handle. This parameter is passed through the following list of functions unchecked by any of them, until the final one will return a failure... DebugBreakProcess DbgUiIssueRemoteBreakIn RtlCreateUserThread RtlpCreateUserStack ZwAllocateVirtualMemory ObReferenceObjectByHandle Now I know this isn't a security vulnerability, which is what I was originally looking for, but it did make me think of the question of where should bounds checking be added? In this example, the process handle must be a value greater than zero. Should this simple check be added to DebugBreakProcess, or all of the above? Is there some sort of standard that everyone should work to? e.g. should all functions check their own parameters. Sure it might make it a little slower due to multiple checks but it would make ReactOS very robust. Any thoughts on this? Martin PS: Lack of activity recently had been due to uni. exams.

18 years, 8 months

Re: [ros-diffs] [hbirr] 20759: - Fixed KiExitDispatcher.

by Alex Ionescu

hbirr(a)svn.reactos.org wrote: > >- Defined KeIpiGenericCall. It is necessary for the smp build. > Hi, It should be in the w32api DDK, not in the interal headers. Sorry for removing it if this broke the build, I didn't notice on UP. Best regards, Alex Ionescu

18 years, 8 months

cmpxchg8b

by Ge van Geldorp

It seems the old binutils versions don't have a problem with "cmpxchg8b" but with "qword ptr". The patch below makes the code compile on older versions again. Any objections to committing it? I've created a bug 1264 for keeping track of the "no longer works on i486" issue. GvG Index: ntoskrnl/ex/i386/fastinterlck_asm.S =================================================================== --- ntoskrnl/ex/i386/fastinterlck_asm.S (revision 20747) +++ ntoskrnl/ex/i386/fastinterlck_asm.S (working copy) @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ /* Get next pointer and do the exchange */ mov ebx, [eax] - LOCK cmpxchg8b qword ptr [ebp] + LOCK cmpxchg8b [ebp] jnz 1b /* Restore registers and return */ @@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ lea ecx, [edx+0x10001] /* Do the exchange */ - LOCK cmpxchg8b qword ptr [ebp] + LOCK cmpxchg8b [ebp] jnz 1b /* Restore registers and return */ @@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ mov cx, bx /* Do the exchange */ - LOCK cmpxchg8b qword ptr [ebp] + LOCK cmpxchg8b [ebp] jnz 1b /* Restore registers and return */ @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ mov edx, [edx+4] /* Do the op */ - LOCK cmpxchg8b qword ptr [ebp] + LOCK cmpxchg8b [ebp] /* Restore volatiles */ pop ebp @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ mov edx, [edx+4] /* Do the op */ - LOCK cmpxchg8b qword ptr [ebp] + LOCK cmpxchg8b [ebp] /* Restore volatiles */ pop ebp

18 years, 8 months

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev