From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10110102128.AA17732@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: First round of XP tests
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:28:46 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
In-Reply-To: <7263-Wed10Oct2001204357+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Oct 10, 2001 08:43:57 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> > find '*.cvs' returns

I presume this is find -name '*.cvs'

> > ./z/z1/!.cvs
> > ./_.cvs
> > 
> > on WinME, but nothing under WinXP; find -name '*.CVS' returns
> > 
> > ./y/foo.CVS
> 
> You may have found another XP bug; perhaps some other LFN-related
> system call is botched.  Please consider looking into this.

Are these tests with the same executable?  Some of the bugs we
are seeing are CVS update bugs, others are Win2K/XP bugs, others are
just old bugs.

For example, the new executable:
 find . -name '*cvs*'
does not find .cvsignore or .cvs but does find !.cvs (on NT 4.0 with lfn tsr).

I see the exact same behavior on Win2K.  Same behavior on XP RC1. I see the 
same behavior with the simtel binary.  

I don't have any Win 9x systems to test on.  

What exactly is the expected behavior and which systems show it?