From: Andrew Cottrell Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Using LFN compiler programs under Win2k Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:44:02 +1100 Organization: The Internet Group (Sydney) Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <3BF3F1E2 DOT 5EAC0F1D AT lps DOT u-psud DOT fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: p492-tnt1.syd.ihug.com.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: bugstomper.ihug.com.au 1005968640 31269 203.173.129.238 (17 Nov 2001 03:44:00 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com If you are going to target Win 2K or XP for a DJGPP compiled app then I would check out the unofficial W2K / XP DJGPP site at: http://clio.rice.edu/djgpp/win2k/main.htm The LFN API in Win Wk and XP are NOT 100% compatible with Win 9x and as such DJGPP 2.03 apps may work or may not work as excpect depeding of which LFN API functions are called. The DJGPP compiler available at the link above should have all Win 2K and XP issues resolved. There are still be issues with these files that are not specific to Win 2K or XP. Andrew On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:48:34 +0100, "D. Taupin (wanadoo-lps)" wrote: > (please reply also to me directly : "Reply all", thanks) > > I experienced that programs compiled with V2 version of DJGPP with >LFN=Y understand long file names with any Win9x or WinEM, event when >transported as the executable only (i.e. withour repompiling on the >target compurer/system). > > I know that there is an alternate solution for Win NT, but this >requires something ON the NT system, which I have no access to, since >not mine. > > Question: if a DJGPP program was compiled with LFN=Y under >Win9x/WinME, will it recognise long files names under Win2K, resp. Win >XP? If not directly, is there a patching program which could be send >together with the executable so that it works under Win2K/XP, WITHOUT >making any recompilation on that target system (where DJGPP is NOT >installed)? > > Thanks a lot.