ecm 2026-06a#117
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Doesn't the disable file need to be renamed also? |
Contributor
Author
Yes, user error. I force pushed now so the second commit renames both files as intended. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The list claimed that the functions 5F07h and 5F08h are DOS 5 level. Therefore, I opened lDOS ticket 1001 to track the addition of these functions to the lDOS kernel.
Today I got around to actually testing the MS-DOS v5 code. Comparing the other 5Fh subfunctions I found that lDOS already supported the functions.
I added notes on the mistaken attribution and renamed the filenames and summary base lines. While at it I also added a more detailed description of the conditions for success of these functions.