holland@psuvax1.UUCP (Fred Hollander) (02/21/86)
I am using a 'more' program that was posted some time ago. It allows you to enter the editor by typing 'e'. It works fine but, when I add the line: switchar=- to my config.sys file, trying to enter the editor from more causes the error: Specified COMMAND search directory bad and doing a set shows that PATH is empty and COMPSPEC is the only other environment variable set. I've tried setting the SHELL in the config.sys file and changing the PATH to use '/' instead of '\' but, I've had no luck. Does anybody know what the problem might be? Thanks for your help, Fred Hollander Penn State
dlnash@ut-ngp.UUCP (Donald L. Nash) (02/22/86)
> I am using a 'more' program that was posted some time ago. It allows you > to enter the editor by typing 'e'. It works fine but, when I add the line: > switchar=- > to my config.sys file, trying to enter the editor from more causes the error: > Specified COMMAND search directory bad > and doing a set shows that PATH is empty and COMPSPEC is the only other > environment variable set. > > I've tried setting the SHELL in the config.sys file and changing the PATH > to use '/' instead of '\' but, I've had no luck. > Does anybody know what the problem might be? > > Thanks for your help, > Fred Hollander > Penn State > The problem is probably that the program does not check to see what the what the SWITCHAR is before trying to run the editor. If it runs the editor by calling up command.com like this: command /c editor then changing SWITCHAR will blow its mind. I've had the same thing happen to me when using Kermit. I had changed the SWITCHAR to '-' and then tried to get a directory listing from Kermit. I had the same results, since Kermit would try to do the following: command /c dir The only solution is not to change the SWITCHAR, since most programs don't check for it. However, if you find using '/' very unsatisfactory, then that is not much of a solution.... Don Nash UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!dlnash APRA: dlnash@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU BITNET: cceu001@utadnx
greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (02/23/86)
In article <2000@psuvax1.UUCP> holland@psuvax1.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes: >I am using a 'more' program that was posted some time ago. It allows you >to enter the editor by typing 'e'. It works fine but, when I add the line: > switchar=- >to my config.sys file, trying to enter the editor from more causes the error: > Specified COMMAND search directory bad >and doing a set shows that PATH is empty and COMPSPEC is the only other >environment variable set. > >I've tried setting the SHELL in the config.sys file and changing the PATH >to use '/' instead of '\' but, I've had no luck. >Does anybody know what the problem might be? > Oh well....I've hit the same problem, alas. It stems from code trying to execute a program called "COMMAND/C". If switchar=- is set, then the program "COMMAND/" is attempted to be executed, eventually falling flat on its face. The only solution I've found is a choice between two uglies: 1) Create a program that switches back and forth the switchar via DOS interrupt 0x21 with AH=0x37. 2) Debug the code in question, do a search for the '/C' and replace it with a '-C'. When will people learn to check the real environment before making assumptions? <Sigh>.... -- ------ ross m. greenberg ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber [phri rarely makes a guest-account user a spokesperson. Especially not me.]
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/23/86)
In article <2987@ut-ngp.UUCP>, dlnash@ut-ngp.UUCP (Donald L. Nash) writes: > > > I am using a 'more' program that was posted some time ago. It allows you > > to enter the editor by typing 'e'. It works fine but, when I add the line: > > switchar=- > > to my config.sys file, trying to enter the editor from more causes the error: > > Specified COMMAND search directory bad > > Fred Hollander > > The problem is probably that the program does not check to see what the > what the SWITCHAR is before trying to run the editor. If it runs the > editor by calling up command.com like this: > > command /c editor > > then changing SWITCHAR will blow its mind. I've had the same thing > happen to me when using Kermit. I had changed the SWITCHAR to '-' and > then tried to get a directory listing from Kermit. I had the same > results, since Kermit would try to do the following: > > command /c dir > > The only solution is not to change the SWITCHAR, since most programs > don't check for it. There is another solution, if you know how to use "debug." Search for the ascii string "command" and note (via -d) if it is the above string. If so, change the "/" to correspond to your switchar setting. I did that with Kermit (before the newer version, which allows either "/" or "\") and it worked fine -- so long as I didn't change "switchar" back again. The way to avoid this problem when writing code is to check the switchar setting and adapt accordingly. Here's the subroutine I use (I have versions for DeSmet, CI-C86 and Microsoft C, depending on which I am using; this one works with Microsoft C): /* setps - set pathname separator to conform to MS-DOS switchar value */ setps() { union REGS r; r.x.ax = 0x3700; /* dos int 37 returns switchar */ intdos(&r, &r); return(((r.x.dx & 0xFF) == '/') ? '\\' : '/'); /* return path separator */ } -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
rde@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.Eager) (02/26/86)
>Oh well....I've hit the same problem, alas. It stems from code trying >to execute a program called "COMMAND/C". If switchar=- is set, then the >program "COMMAND/" is attempted to be executed, eventually falling flat >on its face. > >The only solution I've found is a choice between two uglies: >1) Create a program that switches back and forth the switchar > via DOS interrupt 0x21 with AH=0x37. >2) Debug the code in question, do a search for the '/C' and > replace it with a '-C'. > >When will people learn to check the real environment before making >assumptions? <Sigh>.... > Hardly fair. This is an undocumented feature (however much we believe it should be there) which means the guy who wrote the program either: - didn't know about it - made a conscious decision not to use it in the interests of forwards compatibility. -- Bob Eager rde@ukc.UUCP rde@ukc ...!mcvax!ukc!rde Phone: +44 227 66822 ext 7589
glenn@anasazi.UUCP (02/26/86)
In article <2000@psuvax1.UUCP> holland@psuvax1.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes: >I am using a 'more' program that was posted some time ago. It allows you >to enter the editor by typing 'e'. It works fine but, when I add the line: > switchar=- >to my config.sys file, trying to enter the editor from more causes the error: > Specified COMMAND search directory bad Most programs which allow you to run other programs from within usually use some variation of the dos exec (dos call 41B)to spawn off another copy of command.com that would look like this (that is if you entered if from the dos prompt): C> command edt /c Now, most C compilers do not look for the SWITCHAR variable when building up this text string and blithely put in /c. Thus, the problem is that when you redefine switchar, '/' becomes a path spec, not an argument character, and thus screws up command.com. The solution? Rewrite your C compiler's exec call to check the SWITCHAR variable when doing an exec. Glenn Ehrlich International Anasazi Phoenix, AZ
greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (03/02/86)
In article <840@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> rde@eagle.UUCP (R.D.Eager) writes: >>[Quoting me attacking various software products and their incompatibilities >>with variou settings of SWITCHAR] >Hardly fair. This is an undocumented feature > (however much we believe it should >be there) which means the guy who wrote the program either: > - didn't know about it > - made a conscious decision not to use it in the interests of forwards > compatibility. That would be the case, except that the program in question seems to be a compiler. I would expect compiler designers to keep current on even undocumented features -- part of the joys of working for a large software house, I feel. The code in question (fetch the switchar and replace it in the call to LOAD AND EXECUTE) is only a few bytes long. We've been talking about the switch character on the net for about a year now, and *our* code allows for it. Documented or not, the compiler author(s) must have received a number of calls about it, and therefore should have been able to determine what the problem is/was and fixed it. Just my opinion, of course! -- ------ ross m. greenberg ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber [phri rarely makes a guest-account user a spokesperson. Especially not me.]
haddock@ti-csl (03/03/86)
>Hardly fair. This is an undocumented feature (however much >we believe it should be there) which means the guy who >wrote the program either: >-Bob Eager Sorry Bob, but if you check TI's MS-DOS manuals you will find that the SWITCHAR statement in the CONFIG.SYS file *IS* document. TI made a mistake in doing this but I don't know what their (our) official excuse is on this one. :-) -Rusty- ================================================================ *hardcopy* *electr{onic, ic}* Rusty Haddock ARPA: Haddock%TI-CSL@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA POB 226015 M/S 238 CSNET: Haddock@TI-CSL Texas Instruments Inc. USENET: {ut-sally,convex!smu,texsun}!ti-csl!haddock Dallas, Texas 75266 VOICE: (214) 995-0330
sgt@alice.UucP (Steve Tell) (03/09/86)
>Oh well....I've hit the same problem, alas. It stems from code trying >to execute a program called "COMMAND/C". If switchar=- is set, then the >program "COMMAND/" is attempted to be executed, eventually falling flat >on its face. ... >When will people learn to check the real environment before making >assumptions? <Sigh>.... It would help the situation very much if this call were documented by IBM in their otherwise decent "Dos Technical Reference Manual" Instead of saying "Function 37h: Reserved for DOS" How many other "Reserved for DOS" functions would be of use to everyone? Listening IBM, Microsoft, and other makers of software?
greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (03/10/86)
In article <5095@alice.uUCp> sgt@alice.UucP (Steve Tell) writes: [Taking about the Internal Switchar Function]: > >It would help the situation very much if this call were >documented by IBM in their otherwise decent "Dos Technical Reference >Manual" >Instead of saying "Function 37h: Reserved for DOS" > >How many other "Reserved for DOS" functions would be of >use to everyone? > Well...I suppose it's time to post the Undocumented Interrupt List I've had for a while. The pity is, the updates were lost when the last machine they were on (timeinc) bit the dust. So I only have the original. It's pretty big, so I'm hesitant to post it unless there's enough interest: if enough people mail a "please send me a copy", I'll post. Otherwise I'll UUCP mail it out to ya. -- ------ ross m. greenberg ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber [phri rarely makes a guest-account user a spokesperson. Especially not me.]
farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) (03/11/86)
In article <2279@phri.UUCP> greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) writes: > >Well...I suppose it's time to post the Undocumented Interrupt List >I've had for a while. > Well...if so, it's probably time for me to repeat my warning, given so many times before, in so many places: *** THERE'S A REASON THESE ROUTINES ARE UNDOCUMENTED *** Especially with PC-DOS (as opposed to MS-DOS), the routines which are undocumented are so because: 1) They may not be around in the next iteration of DOS, and therefore may guarantee incompatibility with later versions. 2) They don't work correctly for general purposes. A prime example of this is the "indos" function, which supposedly told you when it was safe to call DOS functions from interrupt handlers. Problem is, it doesn't ALWAYS work, and if a function like this EVER fails, you're in deep crud. I'm not saying that you should NEVER use undocumented routines, as sometimes they can let you accomplish things impossible to do without them. You should always be aware of the pitfalls, though! -- Mike Farren uucp: {your favorite backbone site}!hplabs!well!farren Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (03/13/86)
In article <2279@phri.UUCP> greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) writes: >In article <5095@alice.uUCp> sgt@alice.UucP (Steve Tell) writes: >[Taking about the Internal Switchar Function]: >> >>It would help the situation very much if this call were >>documented by IBM in their otherwise decent "Dos Technical Reference >>Manual" >>Instead of saying "Function 37h: Reserved for DOS" >> >>How many other "Reserved for DOS" functions would be of >>use to everyone? Seems like the more recent versions of MS link have stopped looking at the SWITCHAR function. This may be a sign that SWITCHAR support is on its way out. Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Author of Professional-YAM communications Tools for PCDOS and Unix Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 TeleGodzilla: 621-3746 300/1200 L.sys entry for omen: omen Any ACU 1200 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp omen!/usr/spool/uucppublic/FILES lists all uucp-able files, updated hourly
holland@psuvax1.UUCP (03/16/86)
> In article <5095@alice.uUCp> sgt@alice.UucP (Steve Tell) writes: > > Well...I suppose it's time to post the Undocumented Interrupt List > I've had for a while. > Sorry for the followup, but the mail keeps coming back... If you don't post the list, would you please send me a copy? Thanks, Fred Hollander Penn State holland@psuvax1.bitnet
hu@smu (03/16/86)
Please, just post it. We have been waiting too long to see something like this in public domain. hu%smu.csnet
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (03/27/86)
> To those that sent me mail regarding the Interrupt List: > > I'm gonna post it shortly. There were over 75 requests!!! There were more than that... as one who also wrote but couldn't get through, and who is also responsible for mail ("postmaster") at one of the paths to phri, I can tell you that there have been several dozen messages addressed to phri!greenber that went through here, followed a little later by messages going the other way from MAILER-DAEMON@phri... so, unless you also posted something that provoked a lot of flames :-), I'll bet there are over a hundred people who wrote. (There must be two phri's, or something.) (I would have mailed this, but I've tried every path I could find to phri.) -- E. Roskos "It's Halley's comet!"
jdia@ur-tut.UUCP (03/29/86)
In article <2052@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >> To those that sent me mail regarding the Interrupt List: >> >> I'm gonna post it shortly. There were over 75 requests!!! > >There were more than that... as one who also wrote but couldn't get >through, and who is also responsible for mail ("postmaster") at one of >the paths to phri, I can tell you that there have been several dozen >... Has someone already posted this list sometime in the past few weeks? If so, could they mail it to me? Otherwise, if it hasn't been posted, why not quit talking about it and POST IT!!! PLEEEEEEAAAAAASSSSSE!!! \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Wowbagger: ...seismo!rochester!ur-tu!jdia /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\