Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:17:07 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
cc:	Andrew Cottrell <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
Subject:	Re: DJDIR Windows 2000 investigation results #1
In-Reply-To:	<200107110554.HAA03884@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010711121403.3487D-100000@is>
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

[Please cc Andrew; I don't think he is on this list.]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> > So the non-LFN DOS functions do support the FAT32 bit, while LFN 
> > functions don't.  Gosh, what a mess!
> 
> Well, as FAT16 partitions are documented (IIRC) to only support file
> sizes up to ~2GiB, there's actually no need to support that flag for
> non-FAT32 partition.

I don't know if the partition on which Andrew tried that was FAT16.  
Andrew, can you tell?

> > Given this information, I see several possible ways to solve the 
> > problem.  But first, I'd like to understand more about this FAT32 bit in 
> > function 716Ch of Int 21h.  Martin, did we actually check that this bit 
> > is required for opening large files under LFN?  Perhaps we could throw 
> > together a short test program which tries to read/write such a large 
> > file, and test it on Windows 9X and on W2K; then we would know if the 
> > flag is needed, and if so, on what systems.
> 
> I did. You can't create bigger files than ~2GiB without this flag on
> WINDOZE 98.

I think we should see if the same happens on W2K, before we decide how to 
proceed.

> So it looks like my FAT32 detection routines will be needed after
> all.

I'm not sure.  It's possible that a simple version check is enough.

- Raw text -