Kernel + real-time OS semantics

[Bruce]

No no no
you want to start with a 1227148 ecm, (a C-3).
Then build your way up to a P4  <g>.
The 1227730 has to be the most popular
Bruce




From: "Malcolm Robb, LC 0112G" <Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Kernel + real-time OS semantics
> I'm using assembler A.EXE ver 1.05 and disassembler D.EXE ver 0.10 which
> were supplied to me by Peter G in April 2000. I have no real complaints
> about either of them, and both are 'fit for the purpose intended'. But I
> can and will use any other assembler/disassembler if the 'group' decide to
> standardise on it.
> That said, it ought to be possible to write and comment the code in such a
> way that any assembler can build the binary - unless you are Microsoft or
> Borland of course !
> Count me in for a team effort. We really ought to specify a 'starting'
code
> mask as well. What's the most commonly used P4 code version ? Once one is
> properly hacked and commented, the others ought to be easier for others to
> follow.
> Cheers,

> From: Pat Ford [SMTP:pat at istop.com]
> Subject: Re: Kernel + real-time OS semantics
>
> Why don't we first settle on a disassembler that takes an .inc file ( any
> suggestions??) and make a team effort? Who is interested??
> "Malcolm Robb, LC 0112G" wrote:
> >
> > What a great idea P4.inc would be. I'd also suggest including/using the
> > variable and table names used in TurboP4.pdf too. That way anyone who
> knew
> > how to understand one hac would be able to understand most others.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org