Date:	Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:08:25 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	"Robert van der Boon" <rjvdboon AT europe DOT com>
Message-Id:	<2593-Tue16Jan2001200825+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<000501c07f34$cfdd7d00$1b354bd5@robert> (rjvdboon@europe.com)
Subject:	Re: patch.exe (fwd)
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010109095357 DOT 19017B-100000 AT is> <000501c07c0e$9c67ab40$d7394bd5 AT robert> <7704-Sat13Jan2001115518+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <000501c07f34$cfdd7d00$1b354bd5 AT robert>
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: "Robert van der Boon" <rjvdboon AT europe DOT com>
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:44:06 +0100
> 
> > Okay, this is our villain: the __dpmi_int call either shouldn't have
> > failed (if `new' didn't exist) or was supposed to fail with 5 in EAX.
> 
> New does exist.
> 
> > Actually, in this case, I'm guessing that it should have failed with
> > 17 in EAX (not same device), since the two files are not on the same
> > drive, right?
> 
> Wrong. They are on the same device. TMPDIR=e:/djgpp/tmp,
> file=readme.txt, current dir=e:/temp. If they are NOT on the same device
> patch DOES work. Wait, I'll double-check that one as well...
> 
> > (What are `new' and `old' at this point, btw?)
> 
> old="e:/djgpp/tmp/9$$djren$$.$$temp$$", new="readme.txt"

So, what happens if you simply try to rename e:/djgpp/tmp/foo to
e:/temp/bar with a simple call to _rename on that machine, and
e:/temp/bar already exists?  Does it fail with the same error code
183?  And what happens if e:/temp/bar does not exist?

(I'm trying to figure out whether there's a general problem with
_rename on W2K, or maybe Patch does something that prevents _rename
from working correctly.)

> I tried jumping to the Win98 2143FF BP5053 function, but that gave
> r.x.ax=1, r.x.flags = 3. (function not supported).

Yes, it seems like those functions are not supported anywhere (RBIL
says DOS 7.20 supports them, but there's no such version of DOS in
existence).

> I think I'll try using the NTLFN package as well, maybe it matters.

This is not worth your effort: NTLFN replaces the LFN API with its own
code, which is known to work, and we already established that this
failure is somehow connected with W2K's LFN functions.

- Raw text -