X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=VSIvNs7bAnIMqBt4N6X1Pmu3VGGcS+oTsJeFvxuS1NI=;
	b=sfOK2ddIGqIq9FUHAw1foDobaz2sfA3ZFncPEJfx66qTIU77UZgWQFJrEdcySiCPIM
	1cMOVbXXte0tOrk1Yo9CUcCmLqvALLqqVG0Z6CPL7m+wtY6ivo1bQYoMZzwoWo2YS3xR
	BwiDvivPA6pzM06cjKR9u5Osd1ec6NTa6PS9M=
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<2dc464f3-6f8c-4139-8dcb-0719e25116bf@i39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
References:	<201109171356 DOT 53360 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de>
	<CAA2C=vD-Lzrt2z=gkkQcrgmssdh6F7vgU_kwVgu6o9iPGykMJQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<2dc464f3-6f8c-4139-8dcb-0719e25116bf AT i39g2000yqn DOT googlegroups DOT com>
Date:	Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:23:12 +0300
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vAphY=pug=oSg-5Az05kZybY0NUYg6SS8d9xKL6f3AwRA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: Isues concerning the INT 21 Windows95 - LONG FILENAME FUNCTIONS
	(0x71XX) implementation.
From:	Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p8HJNIdM031384
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 17, 8:56 pm, Ozkan Sezer <seze DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Juan Manuel Guerrero
>>
>> <juan DOT guerr DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gmx DOT de> wrote:
>> > Here is a patch
>> > - to set always the CF flag before calling a 0x71XX function
>> > - to check that AX does not contain 0x7100 after return signaling
>> > that the driver supports the called function.
>> > - to react if the driver does not support the function.
>> > In almost all cases I followed Eli Zaretskii's suggestions.
>>
>> Tested this _very_ briefly on IBM PC-DOS 7 + DOSLFN 0.40e
>> (from http://adoxa.110mb.com/doslfn/) by running hexen2 for dos,
>> no problems so far with or without doslfn loaded in memory.
>> FWIW, though, I have to note that all disk access was in 8.3 style.
>
> You mean Hammer of Thyrion? I assume this means you rebuilt it.
>
> http://uhexen2.sourceforge.net/
>

Yep. I'm the main developer of it.

>> <rant>
>> With doslfn loaded, the hard disk scratching was unbearable to
>> hear. Living with conventional dos is a bliss..
>> </rant>
>
> Yeah, LFNs are a pain sometimes. But most .ZIPs these days refuse to
> live without them.   :-/
>
> Anyways, DOSLFN is still a bit buggy, and technically I don't think
> it's maintained (by Henrik or Jason) anymore. Recently Japheth did
> contribute a very small (third-party) patch (re: FCBs or whatever),
> but it still has issues.
>
> Anyways, here's his (minor) fix w/ binary if you're curious, though of
> course it's unofficial.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/rugxulo/DOSLF40F.ZIP?attredirects=0&d=1
>

Thanks.

> P.S. You quoted his whole (long) message. Oops! Luckily I'm not one of
> those that cares.   ;-)

:)

--
O.S.

- Raw text -