X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ei24WnAkTGaBLjzSzcKCDG4vtUhAXcxA80bPtJCgQME=; b=LL/5/H/8Sl2feVnm8BH9r4L712aKEm+H9O+VlwNrqb/Px3oB86ruvprcMAuJX/ayZT ZCtMJxUMNWzfZibO6fmTUzutAi+H59CA3Aqli0OrRfexHZWhmJPt01sMD4lJYFPQoyws RqRCHumFRRC/3Arqv4y35vRpvBfhycDgNscKI= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8362ktx1te.fsf@gnu.org> References: <201109101340 DOT 47663 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> <83vct04a4x DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <8362ktx1te DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:48:57 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Isues concerning the INT 21 Windows95 - LONG FILENAME FUNCTIONS (0x71XX) implementation. From: Ozkan Sezer To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p8FFn08h030788 Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:20 +0300 >> From: Ozkan Sezer >> >> 2. any fixes went into 2.04 which I have trouble handling because >> 2.03 branch is very much not compilable by gcc-3+. > > You mean, 2.04 has trouble being compiled with GCC 3.x, right? > Because I know of no problems with compiling v2.03 with GCC 3. No, I really meant 2.03: checked out v2_03_1 branch from cvs, compilation fails at many places using gcc 3.3.6 > >> AFAIU, no LFN stuff were in 2.03, yes? > > What do you mean by "no LFN stuff"?  DJGPP supports LFN since v2.02 if > not before that. > I meant 0x71XX usage regarding the main topic of this thread. >> If yes that means 2.03 knows nothing about LFN stuff and _can_ >> result in FS corruption?? > > No.  I use v2.03 on Windows for the past 10 years, 6 years out of them > on XP, and I have yet to see any sign of such problems. > That's good to know. -- O.S.