Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!emory!ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekchips!sail!toma
From: toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Why load "SHARE" (was Re: program to break 32MB barrier)
Message-ID: <8891@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 1 Feb 91 00:24:43 GMT
References: <1991Jan21.230226.4874@hub.cs.jmu.edu> <5489@husc6.harvard.edu> <OTTO.91Jan29194929@tukki.jyu.fi> <145@thor.UUCP>
Reply-To: toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 15

In article <145@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes:
>[...]On the other
>hand, what about those people with NOSHARE loaded instead of SHARE
>(NOSHARE intercepts the FCB function calls and returns a failure
>status) -- do wildcard deletes stop working, does NOSHARE not trap
>the FCB delete, or does the FCB call failure cause it to fall back
>and use the handle functions instead?

There is no problem with the FCB delete, just with writing to files.
NOSHARE traps the FCB open and create calls and returns "failure" 
which prevents writing to files with the FCB write call.
-- 
Tom Almy
toma@sail.labs.tek.com <<< Note new address
Standard Disclaimers Apply