From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Benchmarks Revisited...
Date:	Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:56:10 +0200
Lines:	32
Message-ID:	<3BBD83BA.7236EF6D@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<5l6irt41k9kns8h3j3398rm282b56b6m69 AT 4ax DOT com> <5567-Tue02Oct2001102723+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <9pjrpe$1i64$1 AT news5 DOT isdnet DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	192.116.55.139
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	fu-berlin.de 1002275742 19673754 192.116.55.139 (16 [61365])
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eric Botcazou wrote:
> 
> > > _findfirst / _findnext / _findclose.... sheesh!
> 
> > Perhaps you could write up a compatibility layer and submit it for
> > inclusion in a future DJGPP version.
> 
> We just did that for Allegro 3.9.39 WIP because DJGPP libc's
> findfirst/findnext are not portable at all (time format).
> 
> I think the Watcom libc is right here: it provides both the legacy DOS
> _dos_findfirst/_dos_findnext functions (DOS time format) and the Windows,
> OS/2 compatible _findfirst/_findnext/_findclose functions (ANSI time
> format).

Sorry, I don't understand: what do you mean by ``ANSI time format''?

DJGPP's findfirst/findnext are modeled after their Borland namesakes, and
that is the only sense in which they can be considered ``portable''.

> Would you be ok to include the Watcom, Windows, OS/2 compatible _find* set
> of functions in the DJGPP libc ?

That's what I was suggesting in my message.

> If so and if no one has already started to
> do it, I can code it and submit it for approval.

Thanks; please do.  Please don't forget to submit the documentation for the
new functions together with the code and additions to the header files.

Please send the patches to djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com.

- Raw text -