Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 20:43:04 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
Message-Id: <557-Fri28Sep2001204304+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <10109281641.AA15140@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu)
Subject: Re: fixpath patch (rev 2)
References:  <10109281641 DOT AA15140 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
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: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:41:14 -0500 (CDT)
> 
> > > By the way, this section of code will never call AH=60
> > > truename call, it will always call the 7160 version (does it ever
> > > return UNC?)
> > 
> > I don't know.
> > 
> > One (tedious) way to try is to see if MSCDEX in DOS mode returns a UNC
> > with AH=60h.  If it does, you could fire up Windows 9X but disable its
> > 32-Bit File Access.  This should cause it to call down to DOS,
> > including MSCDEX (which should be loaded in this case).
> 
> But this still wouldn't be under ver=0x532, which is the only way to
> reach this code.

Well, on W2K, you never call 216000h, only 217160h, right?  Since you
said AH=60h, I thought you were talking about Windows 9X.