The DOS support in OS/2 does appear to use a badly written FindFirst/FindNext call, however it has a serious bug that
results in a return of a maximum of about 38,000 files per call.
The DOS support in OS/2 does appear to use a badly written
FindFirst/FindNext call, however it has a serious bug that
results in a return of a maximum of about 38,000 files per call.
From an easily reproducible error from a search routine in a DOS app I wrote years ago, which we had a discussion about two years or so ago.
The DOS support in OS/2 does appear to use a badly written
FindFirst/FindNext call, however it has a serious bug that
results in a return of a maximum of about 38,000 files per call.
From an easily reproducible error from a search routine in a DOS app I wrote years ago, which we had a discussion about two years or so ago.
This demonstrates that you didn't read my original post at all. :)
The DOS support in OS/2 does appear to use a badly written
FindFirst/FindNext call, however it has a serious bug that
results in a return of a maximum of about 38,000 files per call.
From an easily reproducible error from a search routine in a DOS
app I wrote years ago, which we had a discussion about two years
or so ago.
This demonstrates that you didn't read my original post at all. :)
...and the original response, which you didn't read at all, WAS
NOT TO YOU, IT WAS TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO *DID* COMMENT ON THE DOS
FINDFIRST/FINDNEXT.
Feeling a bit snippy today Eddy?
The DOS support in OS/2 does appear to use a badly written
FindFirst/FindNext call, however it has a serious bug that
results in a return of a maximum of about 38,000 files per call.
From an easily reproducible error from a search routine in a DOS
app I wrote years ago, which we had a discussion about two years
or so ago.
> replied. Is that the reply you're referring to? I have readThis demonstrates that you didn't read my original post at all. :)
...and the original response, which you didn't read at all, WAS
NOT TO YOU, IT WAS TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO *DID* COMMENT ON THE DOS
FINDFIRST/FINDNEXT.
Lesha Tsoorgaev wrote a reply on 19 March 2001 to which you
Feeling a bit snippy today Eddy?
Yep, I felt a bit snappy, sorry about that. :)
From an easily reproducible error from a search routine in a DOS...
app I wrote years ago, which we had a discussion about two years
or so ago.
As I recall, it was in the general OS/2 echo, but maybe not....
(Getting old sucks...).
Seems to me it came up as part of a discussion about using the
DOS FCB hack for mass deletions. At least that was what I joined
in for...
If I get a chance in the next day or 2 (and don't forget), I'll
run the app on one of my drives and see if I can figure out where
the wall is.
From an easily reproducible error from a search routine in a DOS> pushing the archive limit for my current message base. You
app I wrote years ago, which we had a discussion about two years
or so ago.
...
As I recall, it was in the general OS/2 echo, but maybe not.
(Getting old sucks...).
...
Seems to me it came up as part of a discussion about using the
DOS FCB hack for mass deletions. At least that was what I joined
in for...
If I get a chance in the next day or 2 (and don't forget), I'll
run the app on one of my drives and see if I can figure out where
the wall is.
You may be able to find it on this BBS.... two years is
Hmmm... A quick search of this area for DOS FCB didn't> find it.... You may have given me a reason to restore read
And I replied to HER because she brought up the DOS call...
Sysop: | digital man |
---|---|
Location: | Riverside County, California |
Users: | 1,028 |
Nodes: | 17 (1 / 16) |
Uptime: | 180:07:17 |
Calls: | 503,703 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 158,902 |
D/L today: |
12,701 files (3,924M bytes) |
Messages: | 444,311 |
Posted today: | 2 |