Date:	Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:34:53 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Message-Id:	<200108061134.OAA25586@is.elta.co.il>
To:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
CC:	acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<10108052205.AA12321@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu)
Subject:	Re: Windows 2000 /dev/null permission query
References:	<10108052205 DOT AA12321 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
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: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:05:22 -0500 (CDT)
> 
> Conclusion - LFN support in W2K is breaking things (like truncate,
> utime, get_dev_info).  Handles opened with the LFN calls are not being
> treated the same as those opened with the old DOS APIs.

Does function 7160/CL=01 (get short 8+3 name for a long file name)
work reliably on W2K?  If so, we could selectively modify functions
like utime that open files and get trouble on W2K, to convert the long
name to a short name and then use non-LFN functions to open the file.
Only on W2K/XP, of course.

We could also do this universally (on W2K/XP), in all functions that
open files, but for that we will have first to see if opening a file
with a legacy DOS function disables some LFN features when we pass a
handle from a non-LFN open.  For example, do functions 5704 and 5705
work on a handle open by a non-LFN DOS call?

Another idea might be to use `dup' to duplicate a handle from an LFN
open call, then see if that handle has the same problems with function
5701 as the original handle.  (Since `dup' doesn't have an LFN analog,
maybe the duplicated handle is created as a non-LFN one, who knows?)

- Raw text -