Message-ID: <37C3E95E.1CDBF58D@softhome.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:02:22 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: lt,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: symlink() & is_v2_prog() question
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990825135357 DOT 2834Y-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> 
> > I got a little bit confused by current symlink() code. The reason -
> > symlink() uses helper function is_v2_prog(), which returns 1 for
> > v2 DJGPP program, 0 for any other program and -1 for anything else.
> > The main symlink() code calls this function to determine the type
> > of linked file. And my question is - why symlink() code checks
> > only for return value 0, and does not handle -1 ?
> 
> -1 means that the file doesn't exist.  It is perfectly valid to create a

Or the file exists, but is not recognized executable :

is_v2_prog("c:/djgpp/bin/gcc.exe") returns  1,
is_v2_prog("c:/command.com")       returns -1,
is_v2_prog("c:/notexist.exe")      returns -1,
is_v2_prog("c:/config.sys")        returns  0.

> > Are there
> > any reasons for keeping current code, which e.g. executes silently
> > symlink("c:/io.sys", "c:/test.exe") and produces not working
> > test.exe file?
> 
> This test.exe will work once the source of the link is created.  This is
> how symlinks work on Unix: you can say "ln -s foo bar" and have `bar'
> created even thow `foo' does not exist.  The link `bar' is useless in
> this case as long as `foo' doesn't exist.

Yes, but that case symlink("c:/command.com", "c:/test.exe"), where test.exe
is produced, pointing to existing command.com and not working? Should be
these cases catched ?

Laurynas Biveinis