Partially checked build vs. fully checked build
- From: Chuck Chopp <ChuckChopp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:17:22 -0400
I've seen examples of how to create a partially checked build of WinXP / Win2K3 / Vista by copying in the checked builds of NTOSKRNL.EXE & the HAL.DLL [replace name with correct one for hardware & CPU architecture] and then specifying them to be used in the boot.ini file via the "/kernel=" & "/hal=", where both files have been renamed to have a .CHK file type.
What I haven't seen is a good explanation of what the trade-offs are, other than performance, when running a partially checked build vs. a fully checked build, especially as it pertains to kernel mode driver development & debugging.
What negatives, or other limitations, are associated with using a partially checked build?
Additionally, do these 2 files vary thru SP levels for any given version of Windows?
If so, then I take it that, for example, if I'm on WinXP Pro SP2, and I want to create a partially checked build, then I need to obtain a checked build version of SP2 in order to get the correct NTOSKRNL.EXE & HAL.DLL files.
TIA,
Chuck
--
Chuck Chopp
ChuckChopp (at) rtfmcsi (dot) com http://www.rtfmcsi.com
RTFM Consulting Services Inc. 864 801 2795 voice & voicemail
103 Autumn Hill Road 864 801 2774 fax
Greer, SC 29651
Do not send me unsolicited commercial email.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Partially checked build vs. fully checked build
- From: Don Burn
- Re: Partially checked build vs. fully checked build
- Prev by Date: Re: windbg details
- Next by Date: Re: Partially checked build vs. fully checked build
- Previous by thread: Who grab COM-port?
- Next by thread: Re: Partially checked build vs. fully checked build
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
