Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:10:56 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc:	Andrew Cottrell <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Fw: Windows 2000 /dev/null permission query
In-Reply-To:	<10108090324.AA15396@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010809091038.7420B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> 7143-4 time cx = 0x4F53 date di = 0x2B08 r.x.flags = 0x0002 r.x.ax = 0x7143
> NEW date (di)= 0x2B08
> 7143 call time cx = 0x4F53 date di = 0x2B08 r.x.flags = 0x0002 r.x.ax = 0x7143

Note that in Andrew's example, new date is identical to the old date;
thus you cannot see whether set-time functions work.  If you modify
the source to have new date or new time be different from the old,
does it really change the file's time stamp, and does that work on
directories as well as on files?

> The 7143-8 time you and Eli were comparing was the creation time, which
> if you note can be quite different from the last write time - and is actually
> after the last write time (bug).

I might have used bad wording, but the wrong sign of the difference
between the creation time and last-write time _is_ the issue I was
talking about (how can a file be created after it was last written
to?).

> So, I hope this clears things up a bit - that the 7143 call seems to work 
> on XP

It is still not clear to me whether 7143 can _set_ the timestamp,
rather than just get it, which is the reason we started talking about
7143 in the first place.  On Windows 98, it looks like 7143 is a
read-only service; see my other mail.

- Raw text -