X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have AT noavailemail DOT cmm>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Isues concerning the INT 21 Windows95 - LONG FILENAME FUNCTIONS (0x71XX) implementation.
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 01:00:35 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <j53tt9$gqg$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <201109171356 DOT 53360 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: qBjb0U1QTH77eiTXJSCpEw.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT aioe DOT org
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.2001
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.2001
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 2172
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Juan Manuel Guerrero" <juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> wrote in message
news:201109171356 DOT 53360 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de...
> 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.
>

Could you recheck a few things?  I'm just looking at the diffs ...

1) In _rename.c you have this:

 if (r.x.flags & 1 && r.x.ax != 0x7100)

Is that correct?  Aren't those two opposite conditions?  It was "if
(r.x.flags & 1)".  Should it be "if (r.x.flags & 1 || r.x.ax == 0x71a00)" ?


2) In many places you check for ax and flags like this:

  if (r.x.flags & 1 || r.x.ax == 0x71a00)

The point being that you said ax needs to be checked also because flags is
not always valid.

Yet, in many other places you check for ax and flags like this:

  if (r.x.flags & 1)
  {
    if (r.x.ax == 0x7100)

If flags is not always valid, does the check for 0x7100 work?  Why
are these checks nested?  Shouldn't these be logical or'd like the others?


3) From the filelist, the patches are for v2.04?  If also for v2.03,
symlink.c uses LFNs.



Rod Pemberton