Message-Id:	<5.0.2.1.0.20010112211047.00a54a50@pop5.banet.net>
X-Sender:	usbanet DOT farley3 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date:	Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:20:58 -0500
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
From:	"Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
Subject:	Re: Fw: Patch for statfs.c
Cc:	ST001906 AT HRZ1 DOT HRZ DOT TU-Darmstadt DOT De, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se, ceo AT nbensacomputers DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<2427-Fri12Jan2001132929+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010111204358 DOT 0368ac40 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
	<5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010110233939 DOT 0275e8a0 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
	<5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010111204358 DOT 0368ac40 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

At 01:29 PM 1/12/01 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
 >> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:50:07 -0500
 >> From: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
 >>
 >> Arg-g-g-gh!  Ignore my last post, I *AM* running the 1997 fil316b 
in
 >my
 >> /bin!  I indeed *have* the more recent version, but never installed 

 >it.
 >
 >What is the size and the time stamp of this old df.exe?

M:\bin>dir df.*

  Volume in drive M has no label
  Volume Serial Number is 1437-18D0
  Directory of M:\bin

DF       EXE        74,240  08-26-97  3:08p df.exe
          1 file(s)         74,240 bytes
          0 dir(s)   1,632,436,224 bytes free

<Snipped>
 >This is sooo strange: I'm quite sure I did use statfs.c from
 >fil316s.zip to produce the 1997 binary.  And we've already 
established
 >that that version of statfs.c is only insignificantly different from
 >what's in v2.03 library.  So how come the results are different?

That, indeed, is the mystery.

<Snipped>
 >Since the old binary seems to work better for CDs, I think it is 
worth
 >our while to try to understand why.

I'm not sure those results are "better" in any sense I can 
quantify.  They *are* different (and lower) than the current statfs.c 
returns.  And let's not forget that Corel Linux/fileutils 4.1 returns a 
third different value, somewhere between the 1997 df value and the 
current statfs.c/AX1510 value.

---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org OR
                      pjfarley AT banet DOT net)

- Raw text -