X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Authenticated: #27081556
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19oxXcZabhouZRXz7NXxszS2xzfoN1tv9Vc4owF+J
	2UFNjUtqtB3E+i
From: Juan Manuel Guerrero <juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [Patch] Issues concerning the INT 21 Windows95 - LONG FILENAME FUNCTIONS (0x71XX) implementation.
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:50:52 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <201109282235 DOT 01944 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> <CAA2C=vC51ca3kqtTFhVP5g8gQVNT_=GfAbm_Fb_eRKv8pL5F_A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA2C=vC51ca3kqtTFhVP5g8gQVNT_=GfAbm_Fb_eRKv8pL5F_A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201109291250.53638.juan.guerrero@gmx.de>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p8TAtZ42022582
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Am Mittwoch, 28. September 2011 schrieb Ozkan Sezer:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Juan Manuel Guerrero
> <juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> wrote:
> > This is the last version of the patch to presented by me to fix the pending
> > issues concerning the use of 0x7XX functions from the LFN API of windows.
> > All reported bugs have been fixed.  Where appropiate the CF is set by ORing
> > the register value, else it is simply set to 1.  This patch only fixes the 2.04
> > version of djdev.  It has been compiled and tested with gcc 4.6.1 and gcc 3.4.4.
> > There is no 2.03 support.
> > For 2.03 support a mayor effort will be required.  See the thread:
> > <http://www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-workers/2011/09/17/11:39:42>
> > and others.  This effort could only be justified if new djdev203[bs].zip files
> > would be uploaded.  I do not think that any average djgpp user will check out
> > the djdev203 branch from the repository and build his one fixed libc.  So DJ
> > must decide if this is worth to be done.
> > Concerning this patch, I will wait a couple of days and if no one complains
> > I will commit it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Juan M. Guerrero
> 
> Made an interdiff of the previous and the current version and
> noticed that in ansi/stdio/_rename.c and ansi/stdio/remove.c
> you specifically moved setting of CF out of the if(LFN) like
> condition i.e. always setting it regardless of LFN: can it have
> any side effects?

No side effects at all.

Regards,
Juan M. Guerrero