X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10201101720.AA14997@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: LFN32 optimizations [was: Re: Proposed lstat.c patch for Win2000/XP device bit fix
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:20:41 -0600 (CST)
Cc:	ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se
In-Reply-To:	<200201101620.RAA27328@father.ludd.luth.se> from "Martin Str|mberg" at Jan 10, 2002 05:20:51 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

> > > Perhaps this macro should be called "_is_ff_LFN32", in case we would
> > > need a _is_ff_LFN macro sometime.
> > 
> > There is actually no difference, the LFN32 is just part of the 
> > signature block set in findfirs.c - it could be any string (as long
> > as it's consistent everywhere).  Changing the name would actually be
> > more confusing.
> 
> But it really is LFN we're talking about, isn't? Not LFN32. Is that
> supposed to mean LFN on a 32-bit OS? But then I suppose it get set on
> plain DOZE with a LFN driver too. So that's not right either. I could
> be wrong, though.

We are talking about just LFN, yes.  The return results from a 
findfirst/findnext call using the LFN API.

This is just the magic signature - see dir.h and findfirs.c 
I'm not sure why it's LFN32 - but it currently is (and has been for
a very long time).    All I want to do is compare to it :-)

- Raw text -