cjhoward@lotus.waterloo.edu (Caleb J. Howard) (11/01/88)
After reading the discussion on surf, I must report that my copy
gurus as well. I've never tried it on anything but a fairly fresh
reboot, so perhaps it will work if I try on a thoroughally used
system. It was mentioned that perhaps bad RAM was at fault. I've
never had any other problems, but won't exclude the possibility.
I have a home-brew internal hack memory expansion on my 1000
that requires the addmem command to work. Perhaps I should try surf
with no extra memory? Whatever, I can't try anything until one of
you gentle folk out there sends me another copy. You see, I canned
my first copy when it looked like it didn't work.
While I have the podium, can anyone out there tell me how long
I can expect to wait for my MindLight 7? I only just recently sent
off my $179.00 (U.S.) and 5 box tops, but am just tingling with
anticipation, and want to know roughly when to get really drooling
at the post box.
t.t.f.n.king@client2.DRETOR.UUCP (Stephen King) (11/02/88)
In article <9394@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cjhoward@lotus.waterloo.edu (Caleb J. Howard) writes: > >After reading the discussion on surf, I must report that my copy >gurus as well. [...] I downloaded the source to this A1000 and compiled under Manx 3.6a. I have run the program several times with no problem. This machine has a Comspec 2Meg board attached. Perhaps the binary got mashed? -- =-=-=-= Stephen J King =-=-=-=-=-=-= DCIEM Human Factors Division =-=-=-= {utzoo|mnetor}!dciem!zorac!dretor!king or king%dretor@zorac.dciem.dnd.ca
beh@caen.engin.umich.edu (Bob Hruska) (11/03/88)
From article <1157@client2.DRETOR.UUCP>, by king@client2.DRETOR.UUCP (Stephen King): > In article <9394@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cjhoward@lotus.waterloo.edu (Caleb J. Howard) writes: >> >>After reading the discussion on surf, I must report that my copy >>gurus as well. [...] > > I downloaded the source to this A1000 and compiled under Manx 3.6a. I have > run the program several times with no problem. This machine has a Comspec > 2Meg board attached. Perhaps the binary got mashed? > > -- > =-=-=-= Stephen J King =-=-=-=-=-=-= DCIEM Human Factors Division =-=-=-= > {utzoo|mnetor}!dciem!zorac!dretor!king or king%dretor@zorac.dciem.dnd.ca No, the binaries were just fine. I was able to run surf just fine. All I did was raise the stack size to 20000. This was on a 512K machine. -- Bob Hruska University of Michigan Computer Aided Engineering Network (CAEN) INTERNET: beh@caen.engin.umich.edu UUCP: {umix|ucbvax|uunet}!caen.engin.umich.edu!beh
bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) (11/04/88)
In article <3f7240ce.5e37@dl5e37.engin.umich.edu> beh@caen.engin.umich.edu (Bob Hruska) writes: >No, the binaries were just fine. I was able to run surf just fine. All >I did was raise the stack size to 20000. This was on a 512K machine. Would it be that hard to add a little routine to surf to check on stack size? (I don't know, this is a real question) I'm also not familiar with surf, but for any PA program that needs a large stack, let's encourage the authors to check that the stack is large enough. If a program in comp.sources.amiga needs a large stack and doesn't ask for it, let Bob know and perhaps he can get the author to add the checking. The fewer GURUs, the better the public reaction to the Amiga... >Bob Hruska University of Michigan Computer Aided Engineering Network (CAEN) ------ Andrew Bell, living a double life at bell@cs.unc.edu and acb@cs.duke.edu "Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -Rich Thompson, talk.politics.misc
riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) (11/05/88)
In article <5069@thorin.cs.unc.edu> bell@unc.UUCP (Andrew Bell) writes: >In article <3f7240ce.5e37@dl5e37.engin.umich.edu> beh@caen.engin.umich.edu (Bob Hruska) writes: >>No, the binaries were just fine. I was able to run surf just fine. All >>I did was raise the stack size to 20000. This was on a 512K machine. > >Would it be that hard to add a little routine to surf to check on stack size? Lattice C by default checks the stack size at each function entry. The makefile for Lattice that comes with surf doesn't turn this option off, and I thought the binary distributed was compiled with Lattice. If yes, then it should be checking the stack. (note that I haven't yet set my stack to 2K and run it, to find out for sure...) -Dan Riley (dsr@lns61.tn.cornell.edu, dsr@crnlns.bitnet) -Wilson Lab, Cornell U.
aegnor@bsu-cs.UUCP (David C. Powell) (11/07/88)
After reading the doc file for surf I wanted to see it in action, there is
something sorta like this written in BASIC for my Atari 800XL (no groans please
I like my Atari!) but this sounded SOOOOO MUCH better (which it should seeing
how it is running on a 68000 machine with 512K!) but I digress...
I downloaded the whole kit-and-kaboodle, and happily typed 'run surf' bam!
"*Software Error* finish all disk activity (Oh how I wish I had GOMF!) then
I hit cancel, bam! *GURU* reboot follows....... everybody here at B.S.U.
that has Surf has this problem, I see on the net "set stack to 20000" I happily
do so, BAM! (ad nauseum...) Is there anything I AM MISSING? Or should I just
recompile Surf? (I have Lattice 3.03b will it work?)
Thanks for any and all help! (and/or advice.... PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME
TO BUY THE NEW COMPILER, I am a College Junior and am in debt up to eyeballs
and can not afford the new Lattice release (upgrade or NO upgrade offer...)
Sincerly,
David C. Powell
M.I.S. Junior
Ball State University
Muncie, Indiana
*-David Powell :aegnor@bsu-cs.UUCP-----------------------------------*
| \/ President :UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!aegnor |
| /\etwnk Industries, Ltd. : |
*-"If it doesn't work, we DIDN'T do it!"-----------------------------*