From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10108131922.AA12804@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: Windows 2000 io testing
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Date:	Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:22:13 -0500 (CDT)
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<6503-Mon13Aug2001220431+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Aug 13, 2001 10:04:32 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> > How much code actually opens devices (nul,con,aux,prn) instead of using
> > pre-opened handles?  When they do, what calls need to be supported?
> 
> Some programs reopen CON (Less is one, IIRC).  In the case of Less,
> that handle is fed to `select', and `select' uses every trick in our
> bag to do its thing ;-).
> 
> There's also the FSEXT feature which opens NUL and then dup's its
> handle whenever it needs one more handle.
> 
> But it's true that there are not many programs which reopen devices.

The reason I'm asking is that this may be relatively hard to fix.  If
we fixed all the rest of the known issues other than devices, how much
would break?  Should we fix everything else first and defer this?  Or
work on devices and slow down getting the other items fixed?

For example, I have a protoype _open() which uses the SFN from 7160c1
and this allows us to get the disk number correctly, but breaks devices
without more special code.

- Raw text -