From: drm AT dera DOT gov DOT uk (David Monksfield)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: need help with LFN please...
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:35:41 GMT
Organization: DERA, Malvern
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <358f83be.9645544@146.80.9.44>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980406090623 DOT 8171B-100000 AT is>
Reply-To: drm AT dera DOT gov DOT uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: 146.80.10.145
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

> 
> On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, dan wrote:
> 
> > So, the right question would have been:
> > If I compile all the stuff, can I expect problems because of LFN's,
> > and, if it compiles, can I expect the various binaries find all the stuff
> > they need?
> 
> Yes, everything should work with or without LFN's.  Any code/procedure
> that doesn't work in plain DOS because of 8+3 file name limits, is a
> bug; please report any such problems here.

I have a small program which needs to access 'dos' file attributes
(hidden/system etc.), for which I use _dos_getfileattr() and
_dos_setfileattr() since stat()/chmod() so not access these bits.

It appears that, under Win95, stat() and chmod() quite happily
handle long filenames but the _dos_* functions refuse to, even
with LFN=y set.

Am I missing something? Is there a better way to get/set these
attributes?

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Dave Monksfield <drm AT dera DOT gov DOT uk>
DERA, Malvern, UK
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer and do not
represent the views, policy or understanding of any other person or
official body.