X-Authentication-Warning:	new-smtp2.ihug.com.au: Host p376-tnt4.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.135.122] claimed to be acceleron
Message-ID:	<003601c12d3c$95e6c0a0$0a02a8c0@acceleron>
From:	"Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	<sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>, <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References:	<00de01c12d06$82e2cd40$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron> <7458-Sat25Aug2001102237+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	Re: Read 3F00 STDIN problem on Win 2K ( was Re: Fseek on STDIN problem on Win 2K)
Date:	Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:04:30 +1000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> > From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
> > Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:37:13 +1000
> >
> > A quick fix is outlined below thanks to Charles finding that a fix for
> > is_executable() is to add a call to 4201 with an offset of 0 after the
3F00
> > call, this also fixes _read(). If this is okay I can also include a
similar
> > change to d_read.c and int86.c
> >
> > What do people think about this?
> [...]
> > +   if(use_lfn && _osmajor == 5 && _get_dos_version(1) == 0x532)
> > +   {
> > +     /* Windows 2000 or XP; or NT with LFN TSR.        Windows 2000
behaves
> > +        badly when using 3F00 call. We need to seek to the current
> > +        position in order for subseqent calls to work. */
> > +     memset(&r,0,sizeof(r));
> > +     r.x.ax = 0x4201;     /* 4201h current file position */
> > +     r.x.bx = handle;     /*  BX = file handle */
> > +     r.x.cx = r.x.dx =0;    /* CX:DX = (signed) offset from origin of
new file position */
> > +     __dpmi_int(0x21, &r);
>
> Is 3F00 broken only under LFN?  What happens if you set LFN=n on W2K:
> does it work then?
No it does not work.

> If it's broken without LFN as well, you need to drop the test for
> _USE_LFN in these patcehs.
I will remove this check and see what other people say.

> And that memset to zero out the registers' struct is not needed when
> you call __dpmi_int (it zeroes out the important parts for you).
I will remove the memset.
> Otherwise, the changes look fine.  Thanks!

I will see if there are any other changes and send an email tomorrow with
all of the diffs.

- Raw text -