From: Eli Zaretskii 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.