From: Martin Str|mberg Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: statfs() mystery deepens -- DJGPP workers exonerated, though! Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 00:34:44 +0000 (UTC) Organization: University of Lulea, Sweden Lines: 28 Message-ID: <994552484.567738@queeg.ludd.luth.se> References: <3B47A9FE DOT 106D49A9 AT alpha DOT delta DOT edu> X-Trace: news.luth.se 994552484 12527 130.240.16.109 (8 Jul 2001 00:34:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT luth DOT se User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-981225 ("Volcane") (UNIX) (SunOS/4.1.4 (sun4m)) Cache-Post-Path: queeg.ludd.luth.se!unknown AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com David Witbrodt wrote: : The discrepancy is here -- the statfs() "TEST" program reports 1 002 : 886 available blocks, while the call of statfs() in my program only : yields 983040 available blocks. (Immediately exiting gdb and running : the "TEST" program still yields 1 002 886 available blocks.) : Both programs (mine, and the "TEST" program) were recompiled : immediately before I started gathering all of these figures. : Apparently the fault is mine somehow, but I don't understand how I : could call statfs() differently to make it work the same way as the : "TEST" program! I should point out that I am compiling statfs() as a : C++ function, while the "TEST" program compiles it as a C function. I : hardly think that could cause this differential behavior, though. : Hope you wizards can show me the light, here! Hohum. You are running in WINDOZE mode, right? Otherwise cwsdpmi might create a swap file which could explain the difference as your program is probably bigger than the little statfs test program. One thing to try is to add printouts in every while and if statements in statfs() to see which path the code is taking and see if there's a difference. Right, MartinS