Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:31:20 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Andrew Cottrell <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 utime query
In-Reply-To: <00e401c11d73$e11f3d50$0a02a8c0@acceleron>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010805102642.10001O-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Andrew Cottrell wrote:

> I  may have found another low level problem with Win2000, this time with
> utime.

Another known problem which wasn't fully debugged yet.

> The output from my testing and the modified touch source is included below.
> On Win98 the r.x.flags return 0x3002. The data from Win98 meachine is:
> fildes = 5
> dostime = 32358
> date = 11013
> 
> As you can see the PC's are not in time sync, but the time still appears to
> be valid. I modifed the utime in the test to see if the Windows 9x LFN
> 0x5705 returned a correct result, but it also failed.
> 
> Any suggestions or ideas?

What is missing from the debugging printf's is the value of regs.x.ax 
immediately after the call to functions 5701h and 5705h.  Please tell
what these values are: that's the error code returned by Windows 2000,
and without knowing what it is, it is next to impossible to guess what
might be the problem here.