Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:23:29 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <3405-Sun28Jan2001202327+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, ceo AT nbensacomputers DOT com
In-reply-to: <200101281524.QAA17329@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:24:29 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: Latest (final?, holding-thumbs) statfs()
References:  <200101281524 DOT QAA17329 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:24:29 +0100 (MET)
> 
> The bad news is I haven't tested it as much as earlier
> versions. Perhaps you guys would like to help me here?

Here are results from a Windows 98 machine with one disk partitioned
into several 2GB FAT16 partitions and one 20GB disk with a single
FAT32 partition:

 C: (FAT16): Total size is exactly what Windows says in My Computer
	     Available size is exactly as My Computer
 F: (FAT16): Total size is exactly as in My Computer
	     Available size is exactly as in My Computer
 D: (FAT32): Total size is exactly what Windows says in My Computer
	     Available size is exactly as in My Computer
 I: (CDROM): Total size is about 1MB more than what My Computer says
 I: (Audio): Total size is about 600KB more than My Computer

I compared the results for CDROMs with df.exe, and df.exe prints the
same numbers.  So there's no regression here.

Note that on my system I clearly see the problem with 7303h (whereby
the reported results are limited to 2GB) when a TSR which hooks Int
21h is loaded in the DOS box.  So I think we need to put this caveat
into libc.info, for all functions which use 7303h.

I also tested on DOS 5.0 with a few FAT16 partitions; the results were
exactly as CHKDSK says.