Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/07/31/05:50:24
George Foot wrote:
>
> On 30 Jul 98 at 16:54, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > Just a thought... If open() fails to find a given file (open for
> > reading, at least), should we try switching LFN and trying again?
> > I.e. default to the $LFN settings like we do now, but try the other
> > way too?
>
[George's discussion of why not snipped]
I agree with George...mostly. My lfn driver does not support drives
that cannot be accessed using the absolute sector r/w functions (ints
24/25/217305)... yet. For now, I'm thinking of making my driver return
a specific error that cannot be confused with another, valid error (eg
invalid function, but other suggestions are welcome). *If* I can't
figure out how to get my driver to support network drives (esp lredir in
dosemu) and cdroms (Joliet-probably big bloatage, will definitly have to
start swapping code in/out of xms, more djasm hacking }:>), I would
suggest retrying with sfn functions if the lfn function returns `invalid
function' (I imagine Windows will never return this if a valid function
is passed).
Hmm, maybe `invalid parameter' would be better?
> I think ultimately people have to make up their minds whether or not
> they want long filenames, and stick with it. If they do want long
> filenames then they need to use (for example) an unzip program that
> understands them.
I agree. In fact, I'm thinking that maybe lfn should be enabled by
default and put up with the `I unpacked with pkunzip -d and gcc *STILL*
won't find the headers' messages. I know, more newbi mail, but then
going from 1.x to 2.x generated a few problems that eventually died out
as the 1.x new-timers (they just got used to 1.x, then 2.x came out)
eventually attritted away.
Bill
--
Leave others their otherness.
- Raw text -