Date:	Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:44:34 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	pjfarley AT banet DOT net
Message-Id:	<2593-Sat13Jan2001094434+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
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:	<5.0.2.1.0.20010112211047.00a54a50@pop5.banet.net>
	(pjfarley AT banet DOT net)
Subject:	Re: Fw: Patch for statfs.c
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> <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010112211047 DOT 00a54a50 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
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

> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:20:58 -0500
> From: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
>  >
>  >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

??? Another mystery?  The binary from the old fil316b.zip is dated
April 18, 1997, and its size is 73216.  At least that's what I have on
two of my machines, and also in the old fil316b.zip.

>  >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.

I'm confused.  Didn't you, or someone else, say that the old df.exe
agreed with Windows Explorer?

If we have more than 2 different answers, and they are all similar,
then I agree that it is a waste of time looking for the reasons for
these small differences.

- Raw text -