Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:57:23 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Patch for src/libc/dos/process/dosexec.c
In-Reply-To: <199810190939.LAA34738@ieva06.lanet.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981019104901.7874U-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> I think that calling unstubified COFF image as .BAT is at least 
> slightly weird and confusing.

I agree, but it still doesn't mean we should disallow it without a good 
reason.  IMHO, users should be entitled to do whatever they want unless 
supporting that would be unfeasible.

> Think about trying to run it by error from from COMMAND.COM

dosexec already supports running all kind of executables which cannot be 
run directly from COMMAND.COM, like coff-go32-exe images without the .exe 
extension.  Unix Makefiles need that.

> It also means that all other previous detection is useless as all files 
> will be executed will be executed using go32_exec() when LFN 
> support is being used (adding extension "" matches all files).

I agree that since we have _check_v2_program, we could clean up dosexec 
quite a bit, and not rely on the extensions so much.