Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 13:17:58 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii To: Vik Heyndrickx cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Temporary files considered unsafe In-Reply-To: <3503C317.3A36@rug.ac.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Vik Heyndrickx wrote: > In which sharing mode would such a file be opened by default? The default DOS sharing is compatibility, AFAIK. > The most > sensible mode precisely seems DENY_ALL, but I'll need to test that. ``Sensible''? Since when do we trust Microsoft to do sensible things? If you do test this, please tell me, as my references don't say anything about this. > The > importance for being able to open a file in a particular sharing mode > seems low. It's another safeguard, that's all. > > and the place where DOS puts it (we want it to go to $TMPDIR, for > > example). > > IIRC this can be controlled through the DOS call. Which one is that? > > Won't all first-level programs in different DOS boxes on Windows have the > > same PSP address? > > I though the DOS conventional memory was common to all DOS boxes, or am > I so wrong? It is not common, it is mapped into all DOS boxes, but it is kept separate. Windows twiddles the memory page directory when it multi-tasks DOS apps, so that each DOS app gets a separate address space, but the real-mode addresses are the same. > If you are right, what about getpid()? DJGPP's `getpid' doesn't use the PSP address. It reads the BIOS clock tick count the first time it is invoked in the given program, then caches the value and returns it hence. > > AFAIK, this is the max number of unique names we can *potentially* > > generate. > > Meaning, in the example above 86400 * X ? What's X? Is it the total number of segments below 1MB mark? And how do you account for the truncation to 8+3 namespace?