Mail Archives: djgpp/2004/12/20/14:30:52
I did download all my version of DJGPP via FTP sites.
Here's a question:
A file has surfaces converted to TXT instead of what I am
definately certain was a .info file; how much of that file
would I have to post before someone can identify the
_actual_ file as bundled with a DJGPP distribution?
I could pkzip the file and post it in its entirety, but that
would involve posting an attachment.
Why be so curious about this? "BCC" / "Borland" are very
prominently mentioned throughout this entire document;
but I seemed to have lost the original file as release by
that particular djgpp package... so I am quite curious now.
THANKS!
ps: We have discovered that printf("%12.12s", str);
works as we needed it to in DJGPP 2.953, however
under Borland bcc32 5.2 it fails to actually truncate
the string if it exceeds 12, this was a disappoint, and
another thing, BCC32 5.2 _dos_findfirst/_dos_findnext
return a truncated Long_Filename !! unlike the proper
way that djgpp does it.
I expect _dos_findfirst/next to return *SHORT* genuine
dos names, and *NOT* do what bcc32 is doing!
Learn something new all the time !!
Here's a questio
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:18:36 -0500, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> Not quite, actually. He's looking at djdev203.zip's version of
>> libc.info, which still is the most current release version, isn't
>> it?
>
>The online docs are newer than 2.03, and 2.04(cvs) is newer than that.
>Another reason to want 2.04 out sooner ;-)
>
>Recent gcc development has been done more with 2.04(cvs) or
>2.03(patched) than 2.03(ftp).
- Raw text -