fat

I have been following the Operating System development tutorial on http://www.brokenthorn.com . Right now I'm trying to setup the BIOS parameter block with this code: jmp loader bpbName db "NubOS",0,0,0 bpbBytesPerSector: DW 512 bpbSectorsPerCluster: DB 1 bpbReservedSectors: DW 1 bpbNumberOfFATs: DB 2 bpbRootEntries: DW 224 bpbTotalSectors: DW 2880 bpbMedia: DB 0xF0 bpbSectorsPerFAT: DW 9 bpbSectorsPerTrack: DW 18 bpbHeadsPerCylinder: DW 2 bpbHiddenSectors: DD 0 bpbTotalSectorsBig: DD 0 bsDriveNumber: DB 0 bsUnused: DB 0 bsExtBootSignature: DB 0x29 bsSerialNumber: DD 0xa0a1a2a3 bsVolumeLabel:

In C-language, what are the most appropriate format specifiers for data type BYTE, WORD and DWORD to be used with printf and scanf functions? I am having a hard time displaying BPB field's values over console. For example, if I am trying to display BPB_BytsPerSec using "%lu", I am getting unusual figures.. printf("Bytes per Sector: %lu", b->BPB_BytsPerSec); I am getting a value of "514", which I believe, is wrong interpretation.. Please suggest the way out. Thanks. (I am using gcc 5.1 via MinGW, over a 64bit Windows) Here is the Structure We are talking about: /* BPB Structure Collected from

I am going crazy...I am currently trying to upgrade boost for my project from 1.44.0 to 1.47.0 on osx snow leopard.- I want to build it with the following command: ./b2 macosx-version=10.6 link=static address-model=32_64 threading=multi stage where i'd expect that it gives me a static fat build that supports i386 aswell as x86_64 . Anyways, it obviously does not, since if i query lipo -info of the resulting libs, they are all x86_64.- What can I do to solve this? Could it be that the build script is broken? I got it to work by using this build: ./b2 link=static threading=multi toolset=darwin

I know FAT32, as well as FAT16/12 neither support symbolic links nor hard-links . However I came up with this idea: The FAT specification describes that every file is associated with a directory-entry. In my understanding, one could say that a file-entry in a directory somehow or other points to the file's content. So, how can I define two directory-entries which point to the same file-content? Or, what could prevent me from doing so? Use case: I have a USB mass storage device for my car radio, and I want to use directories as playlists since the radio software doesn't support playlists. So it

Background My board incorporates an STM32 microcontroller with an SD/MMC card on SPI and samples analogue data at 48 ksamples/s. I am using the Keil Real-time Library RTX kernel, and ELM FatFs . I have a high priority task that captures analogue data via DMA in blocks of 40 samples (40 x 16 bit); the data is passed via a queue of length 128 (which constitutes about 107 ms of sample buffering) to a second low priority task that collates sample blocks into a 2560 byte buffer (this being a multiple of both the 512 byte SD sector size and the 40 sample block size). when this buffer is full (32

I'm developing an embbeded framework for iOS. In order to make an universal fat (with simulator and device slices), I created an aggregate target with a script that uses xcodebuild and lipo commands to generate it, as many people does. With XCode 7.x I had to add an user-defined settings with BITCODE_GENERATION_MODE=bitcode in order to enable it, but this has stop working since the last XCode 7.3 release. I've tried everything I found in the internet like add OTHER_CFLAGS="-fembed-bitcode" , but anything works as before... I have seen this in the build log: ENABLE_BITCODE is always NO, no

I want to search a file duplicate by its hash. For performance purposes I want to know if there is a stored hash/checksum for each file in NTFS/FAT file systems. If there is, I don't have to compute them all to search my file. If there is, how to access it using .NET? If it helps, it will be JPEG files. Do they have a checksum? There is no such thing. Windows does not store a hash for each file. As Jader Dias suggests, there are checksums for EXE's and DLL's but these are not the droids you are looking for. Note that even if you had such a hash, it still does not guarantee uniqueness. If you