X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=iVi0u7X6kiKW+UV79AgrejKqzqn6ahTiKK2lBbp64/c=;
	b=sNaOxbqQlTQzJXhbEqAe/hJonQSrFS+dFURD8SQwRaw5OtbcV5EFpiPu+IsEB7u2Dg
	p5C8lV5vvXootfKvlS280atUu/9qKpJPoJPOcD9V9WMVyJnbr4VK8xS2BcjOg27HiiZZ
	3f8rIWBIH+KFje9fNNk37Mrtcm4jS/l1zcdeY=
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<E1R49TJ-000696-92@fencepost.gnu.org>
References:	<201109101340 DOT 47663 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de>
	<83vct04a4x DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vBkMD34-KBtp0hMbQ3Ppk8gavXJjkddDq_2hjzUA7PYHA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<E1R49TJ-000696-92 AT fencepost DOT gnu DOT org>
Date:	Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:20 +0300
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vDWWQX7AjDMDp+Qo-8yzzSP8GopF9tkrDjYBHFn_G3EnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: Isues concerning the INT 21 Windows95 - LONG FILENAME FUNCTIONS
	(0x71XX) implementation.
From:	Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p8FDXOMq021136
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org> wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:48:06 +0300
>> From: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
>> Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
>>
>> What is the status of this issue?
>
> No one followed up.
>

Hrmph..

>> On a related note which of v2.03r2 and v2.04-20110904 is
>> more suitable for use (with or without the above LFN issues
>> addressed) ?
>
> Depends on your preferences, I guess.  If you want a stable and proven
> library, use v2.03.  If you want fancy new features (like symlinks),
> use v2.04.
>

The only features I need in v2.04 are :
1. stdint.h/inttypes.h and vsnprintf() & co which I can handle,
2. any fixes went into 2.04 which I have trouble handling because
2.03 branch is very much not compilable by gcc-3+.

AFAIU, no LFN stuff were in 2.03, yes? If yes that means
2.03 knows nothing about LFN stuff and _can_ result in FS
corruption??

--
O.S.

- Raw text -