Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

EDR-DOS WIP 2009-03-28 released | many BUG's (Users)

posted by ecm Homepage E-mail, Düsseldorf, Germany, 05.04.2009, 09:51

> - Added AX=$7143 BL=3/4 LFN Set/Get Last Write Time (BL=0/1 broken,
> horrible BUG)
No, it's documented not to work. Read the documentation. If it returns CF set, ax=0001h then this should be fine for any well-written software. (Even badly written software should recognise that there was an error at all too.)

> - Renaming a file in a subdirectory switches to main (reproductibility is
> always - if a small special condition (irrelevant according to
> Cm) is met :lol3:)
Which condition exactly? And where did I say something about this? I don't know exactly what bug you're talking about here, anyway!

> - GetFileInformationBy handle INT $21 AX=$71A6 never pokes flag(C),
> returned attributes are garbage ($42 ???), "is supposed to give the
> ""Unique File Identifier"" of an open file. Until someone can tell me how
> Windows determines this value, it will be shown as 0 instead" - this is a
> BUG of course, why not return the cluster number ?
Cluster number plus the drive's number, of course. However it would still be quite useless because there's no function the unique file identifier is ever used for. And what to return for files on redirected drives? You can't know the cluster number (or equivalent), and there is no Int2F.11 function to retrieve such a number.

> - LFNFind functions AX=$714E $714F $71A1 are apparently broken (Kinesics
> doesn't work anymore)
Either it doesn't handle the case of SFNs only well, or it gives some weird LFN input which the kernel can't process correctly, or it just starts multiple concurrent searches which isn't supported but currently doesn't return an error either. It's probably worth reporting this to Udo.

> - LFN Get Attributes AX=$7143 BL=0 returns flag(C)=1 and AX=1 (!!!)
What's that surprising/shocking/... about this? This is the MS-DOS 2.x+ way of saying "invalid (sub)function".

> securely breaks many things
Stop using that software, or rewrite it with proper LFN support or none at all.

> oops forgot to retest Japheth's original bug :crying:
Considered creating a new thread?

---
l

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22752 Postings in 2119 Threads, 402 registered users (0 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum