| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| Date: | Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:22:38 +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: | <7458-Sat25Aug2001102237+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: | <00de01c12d06$82e2cd40$0a02a8c0@acceleron> (acottrel@ihug.com.au) |
| Subject: | Re: Read 3F00 STDIN problem on Win 2K ( was Re: Fseek on STDIN problem on Win 2K) |
| References: | <00de01c12d06$82e2cd40$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: 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?
If it's broken without LFN as well, you need to drop the test for
_USE_LFN in these patcehs.
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).
Otherwise, the changes look fine. Thanks!
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |