X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:35:51 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <01c5369e$Blat.v2.4$57206280@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailer: emacs 22.0.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.4
In-reply-to: <10504010502.AA15452@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu)
Subject: Re: DJGPP v2.04 Bugs - suggested patch
References:  <10504010502 DOT AA15452 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: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:02:47 -0600 (CST)
> 
> *** \v204\djgpp\src\libc\dos\io\_open.c	Mon Oct 21 00:28:28 2002
> --- d:\_open.c	Thu Mar 31 00:15:32 2005
> ***************
> *** 86,102 ****
>       r.x.si = __tb_offset;
>     } else {
> -     if (7 <= _osmajor && _osmajor < 10) {
> -       r.x.ax = 0x6c00;
> -       r.x.bx = (oflag & 0xff) | 0x1000; /* 0x1000 is FAT32 extended size. */
> -       /* FAT32 extended size flag doesn't help on WINDOZE 4.1 (98). It
> - 	 seems it has a bug which only lets you create these big files
> - 	 if LFN is enabled. */
> -       r.x.dx = 1;                        /* Open existing file */
> -       r.x.si = __tb_offset;
> -     } else {
>         r.h.ah = 0x3d;
>         r.h.al = oflag;
>         r.x.dx = __tb_offset;
> -     }
>     }
>     r.x.ds = __tb_segment;
> --- 86,92 ----
> 
> 
> The comment above indicates the FAT32 extended size doesn't work anyway
> without LFN.  The code breaks microsoft networking.  See test results
> from user below.  Comments?  Any reason not to commit?

You mean, you want to remove the extended-size feature entirely?  That
sounds somewhat drastic: why punish everybody for the benefit of a
few?  I'd rather try with the bit set, and if it fails, try again
without it.  Would that work?