Date:	Tue, 07 Aug 2001 20:54:57 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au
Message-Id:	<2110-Tue07Aug2001205457+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<012501c11f40$1b082090$0a02a8c0@acceleron> (acottrel@ihug.com.au)
Subject:	Re: Fw: Windows 2000 /dev/null permission query
References:	<012501c11f40$1b082090$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron>
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

> From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 21:54:15 +1000
> 
> > Alternatively, we could use function 7143h to set file times directly,
> > without opening it.  Since this function is reported to sometimes fail
> > on Windows 98 and ME, we should use this alternative only on W2K/XP
> > (detectable by their DOS version, 5.50, together with LFN support).
> > Assuming that 7143h doesn't have any surprised (a bold assumption, I
> > know ;-), this would completely avoid the problem with LFN vs non-LFN
> > handles.
> Function 7143 works on my Win2K box, but due to buggy Win 9x
> implementation this does not work on Win98.

We could try 7143 and if that fails and the OS is 98 or ME, fall back
on the current code.

> Output of testing:
> -rw-r--r--   1 AC       root            4 Aug 24  2001 new.txt
>
> 5700 call time cx = 0xB733 date dx = 0x2B18 r.x.flags = 0x0002 r.x.ax =
> 0x5700
> 7143 call time cx = 0xB734 date di = 0x2B18 r.x.flags = 0x0002 r.x.ax =
> 0x7143

Did 7143 really returned a different value in CX than 5700?  They
should return the same value for the same file.

> One advantage of this is that it would be probably quicker on NT as it one
> interrupt call and does not require any file handlers etc....

Yes.

> Now for the hard question:
>     Which way should we go to fix utime?
>             Use 7143 or use SFN handles? My gut feel is to use the 7143
> function on Win2K where LFN is set.

I agree.  It might be a good idea to use 7143 on Windows 9X as well,
with the current code as a fallback.

> Not being up to date with NT 4.0 support and the LFN drivers/services what
> would occur on NT 4.0? Should LFN bet set or not set?

On NT4, LFN will be set only if the LFN driver is installed.

> No flames please on the next question as I don't like asking, but it would
> make the change easier to implement: Does NT 4.0 LFN support matter?

IMHO it matters unless it's too tricky to support.

- Raw text -