ISO9660

Developer
Dec 27, 2011 at 7:42 AM

Hello!

I'm just wondering. Why would you implement hard drive and fat support before cd and iso9660 support? I find it to be a bit illogical since cosmos boots off a cd, emulated or not. Is FAT easier to implement? Also. What FAT have you implemented? 12, 16, or 32?

Thanks!

CMan332

Developer
Dec 27, 2011 at 1:38 PM

The most important thing is the compiler. File system is almost completely working, and i don't think CD support is that important at this phase. Also, i believe we use the original FAT - correct me if wrong though kudzo & company

On Dec 27, 2011 12:43 AM, "Cman332" <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: Cman332

Hello!

I'm just wondering. Why would you implement hard drive and fat support before cd and iso9660 support? I find it to be a bit illogical since cosmos boots off a cd, emulated or not. Is FAT easier to implement? Also. What FAT have you implemented? 12, 16, or 32?

Thanks!

CMan332

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com

Coordinator
Dec 27, 2011 at 11:55 PM
> The most important thing is the compiler. File system is almost
> completely working, and i don't think CD support is that important at
> this phase. Also, i believe we use the original FAT - correct me if
> wrong though kudzo & company

Same spot as before - FAT mostly there but we need a few compiler bugs
fixed.
Coordinator
Dec 28, 2011 at 7:56 AM
ALthough it's interesting to at some point read files from CD, initial focus is on harddisk reading/writing, as that's read/write instead of just read-only....


On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:55 AM, kudzu <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: kudzu

> The most important thing is the compiler. File system is almost
> completely working, and i don't think CD support is that important at
> this phase. Also, i believe we use the original FAT - correct me if
> wrong though kudzo & company

Same spot as before - FAT mostly there but we need a few compiler bugs
fixed.

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com


Developer
Dec 30, 2011 at 12:50 AM

I'm pretty sure the original FAT is FAT12. Correct me if I'm wrong though. I might have asked this before but do you know what the compiler bugs are? Or is it on the to-do list. Either way the project is completely awesome. I could probably implement CD support myself.

Thanks again!

--CMan332--

Coordinator
Dec 30, 2011 at 1:00 AM
> I'm pretty sure the original FAT is FAT12. Correct me if I'm wrong
> though. I might have asked this before but do you know what the compiler

FAT12 is for floppies. We have FAT12/16/32 implemented. They dont vary
very much.

> bugs are? Or is it on the to-do list. Either way the project is
> completely awesome. I could probably implement CD support myself.

ldfld is a big one.
Developer
Dec 30, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Oh ok. All of them are implemented. Makes sense.

ldfld. What in the world is a ldfld? Is than an op code? 

Thanks again!

--CMan332--

Coordinator
Dec 30, 2011 at 1:25 AM
> ldfld. What in the world is a ldfld? Is than an op code?

Yes, LoadField.
Developer
Dec 30, 2011 at 1:34 AM

> Yes, LoadField.

Ok. Got it! What is wrong with LoadField? Allocation? Stack? Ecetera. Not that I would be able to do anything. I don't know asm! ha ha ha

Coordinator
Dec 30, 2011 at 1:35 AM
> Ok. Got it! What is wrong with LoadField? Allocation? Stack? Ecetera.
> Not that I would be able to do anything. I don't know asm! ha ha ha

Not sure, some kind of corruption. I was looking into it but the moved
to implementing asm tracing so I could better debug it.
Developer
Dec 30, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Hmmmm. I think the ASM debugger might be a bit more important. We can't get the bugs without it!

Coordinator
Dec 30, 2011 at 2:00 AM
> Hmmmm. I think the ASM debugger might be a bit more important. We can't
> get the bugs without it!

Bingo!
Developer
Dec 30, 2011 at 2:04 AM

Yay!