Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:10:56 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Charles Sandmann cc: Andrew Cottrell , djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Fw: Windows 2000 /dev/null permission query In-Reply-To: <10108090324.AA15396@clio.rice.edu> Message-ID: 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 Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote: > 7143-4 time cx = 0x4F53 date di = 0x2B08 r.x.flags = 0x0002 r.x.ax = 0x7143 > NEW date (di)= 0x2B08 > 7143 call time cx = 0x4F53 date di = 0x2B08 r.x.flags = 0x0002 r.x.ax = 0x7143 Note that in Andrew's example, new date is identical to the old date; thus you cannot see whether set-time functions work. If you modify the source to have new date or new time be different from the old, does it really change the file's time stamp, and does that work on directories as well as on files? > The 7143-8 time you and Eli were comparing was the creation time, which > if you note can be quite different from the last write time - and is actually > after the last write time (bug). I might have used bad wording, but the wrong sign of the difference between the creation time and last-write time _is_ the issue I was talking about (how can a file be created after it was last written to?). > So, I hope this clears things up a bit - that the 7143 call seems to work > on XP It is still not clear to me whether 7143 can _set_ the timestamp, rather than just get it, which is the reason we started talking about 7143 in the first place. On Windows 98, it looks like 7143 is a read-only service; see my other mail.