Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:38:07 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Win2K bad errno; proposed patch
In-Reply-To: <10206101828.AA23165@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020611083650.2609K-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 Mon, 10 Jun 2002 sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu wrote:

> According to RBIL, that code for Netware4 is "invalid character or
> bad file-system name" - which is exactly what we are seeing (so Win2K
> is consistent) - and on an open we want that to be ENOENT.
> It's quite possible that ENOENT is just as good a translation for any
> example of this error code vs EFAULT (and it's more consistent with
> pre-Win2K behavior).

ENOENT _is_ the right value to return when a file name contains invalid 
characters.  That is what DOS does when you try to create foo.bar.baz or 
foo?bar, for example.