From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: stubify and Windows ME
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:36:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIGEHBCBAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010311132533.13811F-100000@is>
Importance: Normal
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

> Sigh...  I _hate_ such mysteries!
>
> The problem is, this isn't the first users who reports similar
> problems with Windows ME.  So there _is_ some problem there.
>
> Is your stubify the stock one from djdev203.zip, btw?
Wasn't sure, so I downloaded that one - same results.
Mind you, all my testing was in a DOS box, not in DOS mode; not
sure where the reporter was running.

If they're using the hacked DOS mode, I wouldn't be surprised if
it was failing - it's not intended for 'production use', just for
rescue disks and _old_ DOS programs.

[smooth segue into different post]

> Hm? DOS 8.0?  Could you please check if it supports the new functions
> that accept 128-char file names (instead of 67-character limit in older
> versions)?  See _rename.c for the details and example of how this is used
> by the library.
I'll look there; is there an existing test case for this I could use?

> Previously, someone reported that these functions don't seem to be
> supported, or that DOS version never goes beyond 7.10.  (What does
> _get_dos_version(1) return on that system, btw?)  So I'm considering
> whether or not we should remove that special clause from a few library
> functions.
_os_flavor has 'MS-DOS'; both (0) and (1) versions of _get_dos_version
return 8.0.

> It's possible that to test these special functions, you will need to go
> to the DOS Mode.
There is no 'official' DOS mode, and I'm disinclined to use the crack
that's floating around.