On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 05:16:19 +0200, Rugxulo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bug compared to what? Do you have experience with other DOSes where it > worked correctly (without the Windows GUI)? Compared to my expectations (:D) and Windows' behavior. I don't know how other DOSs behave. > But ... this would probably attract better attention at freedos-kernel. Good point. I don't subscribe to that list so I didn't even think about it. > Why is this considered important? What actual programs use these > details? Can you present a case for needing them? I'm not opposed at > all, just curious. For informative purposes. I don't do any "automated processing" on them. > I don't know the details. I assume it was FAT32 only. It works on FAT16 as well. The creation time is just a part of a FAT directory entry. > I vaguely remember some > (partial, incomplete) ctime/atime functionality in DOSLFN, but it's > not something I would totally rely upon. I run DOSLFN all the time and I didn't notice them being set. Does it require the TZ environment variable to be set? > I don't know if these specific calls can be supported correctly > without LFNs enabled. You'd have to ask on freedos-kernel. I just meant the code that sets a file's creation time when it's created (not just its modification time), which is probably just two extra MOV instructions. If the associated API functions stay in DOSLFN, that's fine with me. And I can live with running a modified kernel too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
