Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:02:45 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<8011-Wed11Jul2001190244+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<001201c10a0b$05de5760$0a02a8c0@acceleron> (acottrel@ihug.com.au)
Subject:	Re: DJDIR Windows 2000 investigation results #1
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010711121403 DOT 3487D-100000 AT is> <001201c10a0b$05de5760$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron>
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

> From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:11:38 +1000
> 
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> >
> > > > So the non-LFN DOS functions do support the FAT32 bit, while LFN
> > > > functions don't.  Gosh, what a mess!
> > >
> > > Well, as FAT16 partitions are documented (IIRC) to only support file
> > > sizes up to ~2GiB, there's actually no need to support that flag for
> > > non-FAT32 partition.
> >
> > I don't know if the partition on which Andrew tried that was FAT16.
> > Andrew, can you tell?
> I was running it from a share on the WIN98 box.

Yes, but how was that volume formatted on the Windows 98 box? as FAT16
or FAT32?

> The src/libc/dos/io/_*.c files seem to be inconsistent as some check the
> _osmajor version number if LFN is used and some don't.

Hmm... that's true.  Martin, do you remember why _open and _creatnew,
for example, use a different logic as far as OS versions are
concerned?

> 1) Borrow the Windows NT detection from Allegro (uses getenv("OS") function)
> and insert it inside the crt1.c setup_os_version(void) function to set a
> variable which is then used in the potential LFN functions that need to be
> modified to not set the FAT32 extended bit.
> 2) Check the _osmajor function when wsetting the FAT32 extended bit in the
> potentially affected LFN functions. This seems to be the most appropriate
> change that would least impact anyone as the LFN API with the FAT32 extended
> bit will still be enabled on WIN 9x. Any thoughts on this?

The second one sounds better (I don't like to rely on environment
variables, because a user could set/reset them).  But I'd still like
to know if this means FAT32 is unsupported on WK or not; we need at
least to document that.

> > I think we should see if the same happens on W2K, before we decide how to
> > proceed.
> Do you have any sample apps for me to try?

Martin, perhaps you could send your test program to Andrew?

> I have a small suspicion that FAT32 detection would not help as the problem
> is probably in the Win2K VDM implementation. I have two physical hard drives
> in my Win2K box. The first hard drive is split into three partitions, C: &
> D: are NTFS while E: is FAT32. The seconds hard drive is H: and is FAT 32.
> (F & G are DVD and CDRW drives).

Are the FAT32 drives larger than 2GB?  If so, you could run the tests
on those drives.

- Raw text -