MALCOLM@tower-vax.city-poly.ac.UK (12/13/89)
Thanks to Allan Pratt for his clear description of the 40-folder bug and what TOS 1.4 does about it. No flame intended, but I think this is the first *real* description of the problem that I've seen. Which brings me to my question. When I disassembled AHDI (version 1.7 I think) I noticed that it contained identical pool-extension code to FOLDRXXX. So am I right in thinking that if AHDI extends the pool by a large enough number of directory node descriptors I can throw away FOLDRXXX? I could add code to AHDI to make the extnension variable (duplicating the functionality of the 'XXX' in 'FOLDRXXX'). -- JANET: malcolm@uk.ac.clp.tvax Internet/EARN/Bitnet: malcolm@tvax.clp.ac.uk
hcj@lzaz.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) (12/13/89)
In article <8912130812.AA24281@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, MALCOLM@tower-vax.city-poly.ac.UK writes: > Which brings me to my > question. When I disassembled AHDI (version 1.7 I think) I noticed that it > contained identical pool-extension code to FOLDRXXX. So am I right in thinking > that if AHDI extends the pool by a large enough number of directory node > descriptors I can throw away FOLDRXXX? I could add code to AHDI to make the > extnension variable (duplicating the functionality of the 'XXX' in 'FOLDRXXX'). NO! ahdi adds folders so that you can even load foldrxxx.prg (tos 1.0). I learned this the hard way when trying to find why I had a tos1.4 problem not on 1.0. I recompiled my ahdi clone without the folder fix and found I could not open any files in the desktop. They had all been used in getting there. (Yes I'm sure the number of sub directories in c: affected my case.) However, ahdi does not add enough for many applications. FOLDRXXX.PRG allows you to take enough memory for your environment without wasting too much memory. Howard C. Johnson ATT Bell Labs att!lzaz!hcj hcj@lzaz.att.com