Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:24:11 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
cc: DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: stat on FAT32 (was: Re: FAT32 (xstat.c))
In-Reply-To: <199901311416.PAA09587@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990131162210.19083E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> > Yes, but is that the correct cluster number?  Can you use some low-level 
> > disk utility (in plain DOS) to verify?
> 
> Nope. I haven't got any. (It sounds dangerous too.)

If you only look at the disk structure but never change anything, it 
isn't dangerous.

> > I suspect that 24936 is only the low 16 bits of the cluster number 
> > (unless in your case the high bits were accidentally zero).
> 
> I could use gdb to see what stat get for st_ino, if you want.

That won't help.  The problem is that `stat' gets the cluster number 
based on pre-FAT32 layout of internal DOS structures, where there was 
only enough space for 16 bits.