From: JohnT Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Borland 4.5 C/C++ compiler problem Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:23:40 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: <39BBEDCC.9A08BFFA@inXSformatics.net> References: <8n65c7$708 AT nntp DOT seflin DOT org> <39B4FA72 DOT 4943D810 AT inXSformatics DOT net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-328.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win16; I) To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Damian Yerrick wrote: > "JohnT" wrote: > > > > I was browsing around comp.os.msdos.djgpp and found the problem > > of parts of the disk being marked "unmoveable". I'm not sure, but > > think this may be due to DOS sessions running under Windows and > > getting some kind of undocumented crap written to files or clusters > > by Windows. My system had two hard drives for a while, one used > > as backup, and I would get rid of the unmoveable clusters by doing > > a backup, reformat and copying all the files back. The exact flag > > that causes the "unmoveable" designation I don't know about, but > > documented file attributes don't have a bit that means "unmoveable". > > Anyone got a good guess on this? > > "Hidden" files and "system" files are considered by defraggers to be > fixed in position so as not to break some programs' copy protection. But when I've done a DIR /s/ah or DIR /s/as to look for hidden and system files, nothing unusual turned up as I recall. The possibility of some other bit being set in a file header or something in the FAT table having an odd value came to mind, but I don't have the know-how to check out those ideas. John