Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!cechew
From: cechew@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Earl Chew)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: 'shoelace' under minix-386 - a minor problem
Keywords: shoelace minix-386 bcc badblocks
Message-ID: <3480@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Date: 17 Dec 90 21:32:10 GMT
References: <567@phcoms.seri.philips.nl>
Organization: Monash Uni. Computer Science, Australia
Lines: 30

In <567@phcoms.seri.philips.nl> jolley@phcoms.seri.philips.nl (Graham Jolley) writes:

>I only had one slight problem. 
>THE 'bootlace' CODE PRODUCED USING 'bcc' WAS TOO BIG TO
>LOAD INTO THE BOOTBLOCK. As I remember it was about
>1140 bytes or so.

Yes. Bcc is fast, but the penalty you pay is that the code is too big :-(
Perhaps one day Bruce will get an optimiser going.

>Has anybody else experienced the same thing and
>is it fixable?

Yes --- with an optimiser.

>PS - My disk seems to have developed a badspot
>which I'm trying hard not to rub! As I remember
>the MINIX badblocks program has or had a problem
>marking such blocks. Can someone refresh my memory?

There was a problem and there is a patch available. Unfortunately, I've applied
the patch and removed it from the Unix box here. Maybe it's available from one
of the archives? You can use de to check that the block has indeed been mapped
out.

Earl
-- 
Earl Chew, Dept of Computer Science, Monash University, Australia 3168
EMAIL: cechew@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au PHONE: 03 5655447 FAX: 03 5655146
----------------------------------------------------------------------