Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!rutgers!mailrus!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!tree!stever
From: stever@tree.UUCP (Steve Rudek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: term.c for rn on uport 286
Summary: Are the V/AT rn segmentation violations really curses related?
Keywords: rn, term.c, V/AT(286)
Message-ID: <153@tree.UUCP>
Date: 21 Nov 88 16:28:48 GMT
References: <102@swamps.UUCP> <405@zinn.MV.COM>
Organization: TREE BBS (916)-349-0385 Sacramento, Ca
Lines: 20

In article <405@zinn.MV.COM>, mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) writes:
> In article <102@swamps.UUCP> val@swamps.UUCP (val) writes:
> >I am wondering if anyone has modified the rn term.c for use with
> 
> When I upgraded to 2.4 of System V/AT, I got segmentation violations
> out of term.c in rn.  Because of the comments I'd read here about
> the new curses being buggy, I simply went back to the curses
> library from the previous release.  Voila, no more segmentation
> errors.
Can anyone here second that curses is the source of the errors?  I compiled
rn a week ago and was disappointed that it kept complaining about segmentation
violation "signals" and, supposedly, coredumping.  I say "supposedly" because
I could never find a coredump anywhere.  I didn't have the inclination to
investigate the problem at the time so I just zooed things up and resolved to
ask about it in this group.

Does anyone have rn working under 2.4 *with* the 2.4 curses?  I'd *really*
rather not go back to 2.3 curses.  In fact, I'd probably forego rn altogther
(it is easier to forego something that you've never experienced) than
use 2.3 curses.  2.3 curses was *incredibly* buggy.