Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/07/12/06:19:10
> > > > > 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?
> > I was running it from a share on the WIN98 box.
>
> Yes, but how was that volume formatted on the Windows 98 box? as FAT16
> or FAT32?
The C: on the Windows 98 box is a 9.52GB partition FAT32 partition (one
partition on hard drive).
> > The src/libc/dos/io/_*.c files seem to be inconsistent as some check the
> > _osmajor version number if LFN is used and some don't.
>
> Hmm... that's true. Martin, do you remember why _open and _creatnew,
> for example, use a different logic as far as OS versions are
> concerned?
> > 1) Borrow the Windows NT detection from Allegro (uses getenv("OS")
function)
> > and insert it inside the crt1.c setup_os_version(void) function to set a
> > variable which is then used in the potential LFN functions that need to
be
> > modified to not set the FAT32 extended bit.
> > 2) Check the _osmajor function when wsetting the FAT32 extended bit in
the
> > potentially affected LFN functions. This seems to be the most
appropriate
> > change that would least impact anyone as the LFN API with the FAT32
extended
> > bit will still be enabled on WIN 9x. Any thoughts on this?
>
> The second one sounds better (I don't like to rely on environment
> variables, because a user could set/reset them). But I'd still like
> to know if this means FAT32 is unsupported on WK or not; we need at
> least to document that.
I have recompiled the DJ204 CVS LIBC using the seconds option as I thought
this would be the best option.
> > > I think we should see if the same happens on W2K, before we decide how
to
> > > proceed.
> > Do you have any sample apps for me to try?
>
> Martin, perhaps you could send your test program to Andrew?
I have not read the other responses yet.
> > I have a small suspicion that FAT32 detection would not help as the
problem
> > is probably in the Win2K VDM implementation. I have two physical hard
drives
> > in my Win2K box. The first hard drive is split into three partitions, C:
&
> > D: are NTFS while E: is FAT32. The seconds hard drive is H: and is FAT
32.
> > (F & G are DVD and CDRW drives).
>
> Are the FAT32 drives larger than 2GB? If so, you could run the tests
> on those drives.
All of the FAT32 partiions are > 2GB.
On the Windows 2000 box I have two FAT 32 partitions one approx 5GB (73MB
used) and the other 18.9GB (second hard drive 60K used). I can resize the
18.9GB drive if needed.
- Raw text -