Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:53:31 +1100
From: Bill Currie <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Subject: Re: Should off_t become unsigned?
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971014105642.14214O-100000@is>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-id: <199710141950.IAA13330@teleng1.tait.co.nz gatekeeper.tait.co.nz>
Organization: Tait Electronics Limited
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <199710140840 DOT VAA11082 AT teleng1 DOT tait DOT co DOT nz gatekeeper.tait.co.nz>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Precedence: bulk

On 14 Oct 97 at 10:59, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Bill Currie wrote:
> 
> > Don't some of the fcb functions fail with fat32? Try opening an 
> > accessible file using an fcb and if it fails, you have fat32.
> 
> That's another possibility, yes.  But the problem is with that
> ``acessible file''.  It seems that on MSDOS, there's no file whose
> existence we can always rely on.

c:\io.sys

Always there (I'ld be worried if it wasn't;) seems to always be 
accessable and I think fcb's can get at hidden/system files.

> 
> Also, opening a file is rather expensive (but that might be not
> important here, as we talk about file-related operations anyhow).

Once off at startup or first file system call should be all that's 
needed.
Bill
--
Leave others their otherness.