eyal@cancol.oz (Eyal Lebedinsky) (05/04/90)
Greetings, Compiling 1.5.9 I got ls to fail at asld time with 'duplicate _21'. I libunpacked ls.s and removed _21 (it was defined '_21 = _20'). Then I finished making ls. When running ls would dump core if the '-l' is used, but in some cases it would work almost properly. I ended using the 1.4 binary which seems to have no problem. How safe is it to use 1.4 binaries in a 1.5 system? I am safe with ls which only reads the disk, but what about other commands? RE asld, I started with the 1.1 compiler and later moved to the 1.2 (1.3?) compiler. Was there another (later) release? I sure did not see any on the net. -- Regards Eyal
craig.mclaughlin@cccmvs.UUCP (07/12/90)
Is there something I'm missing when I read the manual pages for ls()? Is there an equivalent to the -C or -F flags (to output in columns, and with executable/directory flags)? HELP! Because directories like /usr/bin are getting to be real difficult to look through... Craig McLaughlin "I don't know what I'm working on, and cpm00@amail.ccc.amdahl.com I'm coding away." -- Simon Ko.
tgcpwd@rc3.urc.tue.nl (Wim van Dorst) (07/12/90)
In article <m0hpkAL-00001QC@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> craig.mclaughlin@cccmvs.UUCP writes: > Is there something I'm missing when I read the manual pages for >ls()? Is there an equivalent to the -C or -F flags (to output in >columns, and with executable/directory flags)? Don't be afraid, the -C option is in, as well as the -F option, as well as many other options, as of somewhere in 1.3 or 1.4. It definitively is in 1.5.10, the current. No need for fancy workarounds (Wayne:you want a copy? :-) -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim 'Blue Baron' van Dorst ----------------------------------------------------------- baron@wiesje.mug.hobby.nl and tgcpwd@urc.tue.nl