john@bradley.UUCP (04/23/87)
I have a 3B2/300 running System V Release 2.1 and while
trying to run some commercial programs (filePro 16/Crystalwriter), I get
the following error:
foo: cannot execute
In the 2.1 Release notes and it says that certain programs compiled with
an older C compiler will cause this problem. It then tells you to
recompile the offending program with a 3.0 or newer version of the C
compiler. It also says that you can to a 'dump -vf foo' and if you
see a F_BM32RST flag set, then you must recompile it.
What does the F_BM32RST flag do and is there a way to convert the binary to
get it to run? We are going to upgrade our machine(s) to release 3
this summer, will this problem also exist when I upgrade to 3.[01]
When I mentioned the problem to the hot line about filePro not being able to
run, they basically refused to listen to me since filePro is not supported
by AT&T. I just wanted to find out what the differences were between
2.0 and 2.1, but they still wouldn't listen. They told me it wasn't their
problem and that I could talk to Small Computer Company (makers of filePro 16)
By the way, Small wouldn't listen to me either, they said it "wasn't their
problem, and I should talk to AT&T) It is good to see that somethings never
change.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
John Lengeling UUCP: {cepu,ihnp4,uiucdcs}!bradley!john
Bradley University ARPA: cepu!bradley!john@UCLA-LOCUS
Bradley Hall Room 6F PH: (309) 677-2230
Peoria, IL 61625authorplaceholder@gorgo.UUCP.UUCP (04/27/87)
John Lengeling in comp.sys.att writes: >I have a 3B2/300 running System V Release 2.1 and while >trying to run some commercial programs (filePro 16/Crystalwriter), I get >the following error: > > foo: cannot execute >... >What does the F_BM32RST flag do and is there a way to convert the binary to >get it to run? We are going to upgrade our machine(s) to release 3 >this summer, will this problem also exist when I upgrade to 3.[01] The problem will persist with SVR3.1. However you may be able to get the old binaries to run on a model 310... The upgrade to the 310 involves a system board swap out and I think costs about $2500... The crux of the problem was that compiled binaries were promised to run across 2 releases. Release 1.0 binaries would run on release 2.0. Release 2.1 was a provisional step between 2.0 and release 3. However, I have found that most old binaries still run on the 310,400,600 and the 3B15... I have a 300 and my old cshell binary ceased to run when I upgraded to release 3.0, but would still run under 2.1 and 3.1 on a 310 or 400. Hope this helps, Steve Blasingame (Oklahoma City) ihnp4!gorgo!bsteve
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (04/27/87)
The big difference between SVR2 and SVR2.1 for the 3B2 is that the latter supports paging (as opposed to swapping). This is typically a big win. Apparently, the software you are running was compiled with an old issue of the C compiler. a.out files created by that compiler will not run on a 3B2/300 with a paging O.S., although they are supposed to run on any of the 3B2 systems based on the WE32100. As I recall, there's a problem with the WE32000 chip fixed in the WE32100 and worked-around in later versions of the C compiler. I seem to remember this all being documented somewhere. Looks like your choices are to go back to the software vendor or upgrade to a 3B2/310. Have fun. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix Motorola Microcomputer Division (MCD), Schaumburg, IL "I am not elsewhere."