hobie@sq.UUCP (10/13/87)
I tried using the latest Dillon/Drew shell and found it unusable for
one small reason. When I run `make' it refuses to do so, telling me
FATAL error: EXEC failure
or words to that effect. This same problem happened to me using 2.06, so I
switched back to 2.05M. This time though, I would like to know why it's doing
this. If someone would E-mail me concerning this I would be appreciative.
Hobie Orris |
guest of SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Ont. |"There'll be no more giant leeches
{ihnp4 | decvax | ? }!utzoo!sq!hobie | When you find the good Lord Jesus"ralph@mit-atrp.UUCP (Amiga-Man) (10/13/87)
In article <1987Oct12.214644.24296@sq.uucp> hobie@sq.uucp (Hobie Orris) writes: > > > I tried using the latest Dillon/Drew shell and found it unusable for I also got it and with great hope tried it out. However, after using it for about 15 minutes, it managed to kill the workbench process. The machine was still running fine, but no workbench icons or windows were being refreshed. I need my workbench ! I suspect the creator of the shell 2.07m doesn't use the workbench and hence hasn't noted this bug. I would be very happy if the bug were identified explicitily and then routed out. I get nervous when someone says: "Well, we moved some code around to fix bug X, and meanwhile bug Y went away too, but we don't know why." Scary, with Halloween coming soon and all. Ralph (Amiga-man).
drew@cgofs.dec.com (Steve Drew) (10/14/87)
In reply to Hobie Orris: > I tried using the latest Dillon/Drew shell and found it unusable for >one small reason. When I run `make' it refuses to do so, telling me > >FATAL error: EXEC failure > >or words to that effect. This same problem happened to me using 2.06, so I >switched back to 2.05M. This time though, I would like to know why it's doing >this. If someone would E-mail me concerning this I would be appreciative. The problem is simple. You are running an old version of manx 'make' probably 3.20a. With manx 3.20a the fexec funtion that calls as and cc was written for AmigaDos 1.1 and later a patch was available to make it work for 1.2. With the newer versions of manx the fexec funtions were rewritten for 1.2, and fixed many problems. However it having a new version of fexec (in shell 2.06&7M) calling a program that calls the old version of fexec (manx make 3.20a) just does'nt work. Solution: 1. upgrade your manx software. or 2. use "run make" under shell. Steve Drew.
jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM (Joanne Dow) (10/14/87)
In article <1987Oct12.214644.24296@sq.uucp> hobie@sq.uucp (Hobie Orris) writes: > > > I tried using the latest Dillon/Drew shell and found it unusable for >one small reason. When I run `make' it refuses to do so, telling me > >FATAL error: EXEC failure > >or words to that effect. This same problem happened to me using 2.06, so I >switched back to 2.05M. This time though, I would like to know why it's doing >this. If someone would E-mail me concerning this I would be appreciative. Manx, right? They have a set command that sets up their environment. The shell also has one. There are several ways around this little pecadillo. The simplest is rename the Aztec set command and the macro files that use it. The second simplest is take TxEd to edit csh. Search for "copy". (That's easy to find and unique.) Hit right-A-v to toggle to the overwrite mode. Then carefully overwrite the "set" in that list with SET or Set or whatever. In fact i haev done this with several of the commands that I wanted to save but not have as the defaults... The hardest is to recompile with these same renamed commands. (Note that csh is case sensitive for its internal commands!) -- <@_@> BIX:jdow INTERNET:jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP:{akgua, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!jdow Remember - A bird in the hand often leaves a sticky deposit. Perhaps it was better you left it in the bush with the other one.