Message-Id:	<m0yqijD-000S41C@inti.gov.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:38:52 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Windows 9X/NT file times
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980629200514.4204A-100000@is>

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

> This message summarizes what I've learned.  At the end of the message
> you will find two test programs which I used to find out the facts.  I
> would like to ask those who have access to Windows 9X/NT systems to
> please run the programs and report results.  I only have access to
> Windows 95 version 4.00.950 (where the above warning from Make doesn't
> happen), so information about any other versions will be most
> appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

4.00.950 have 450 more bugs than OSR 2.0 according M$ ;-)
 
> Since libc functions only support DOS 2-sec granularity of file times,
> I decided to use raw Int 21h calls to get the best time resolution I
> can have.  The first test program below will allow you to display the 3
> time stamps of every file on its command line.  At least on my version
> of Windows, the last-access time is actually only the date (the time
> is zero),  

I'll run your test, but right now I can inform you that under v4.00.1111 the 
second value *have* time so I guess it was one of the 400 bugs ;-))

SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -