Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!prls!pyramid!unify!reg From: reg@unify.uucp (Russell Grau) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: 386 unix vs. 286 xenix unify Message-ID: Date: 5 Mar 90 22:36:51 GMT References: <1990Feb13.040254.7988@chinet.chi.il.us> <1990Mar1.170952.7880@chinet.chi.il.us> Reply-To: reg@unify.UUCP (Russell Grau) Distribution: na Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA Lines: 48 In article <1990Mar1.170952.7880@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >In article reg@unify.UUCP (Russell Grau) writes: > >>>Can anyone tell me if it is possible to run a '286 Xenix executable >>>linked with the unify libraries under '386 unix SysVr3? > >>According to the SCO Xenix System V manual "C Language Guide" pages 2-4 and >> ... deleted some items here to shorten it up ... > >I have AT&T unix SysVr3.2, not Xenix for the 386. Is there a way to >convince its loader to handle the xenix library files? > > >The applications that are straight unify code work fine. The program that >has a problem runs up to a point where a number is typed in (possibly a >floating point emulation problem in the 'C' portion of the code). >The problem with upgrading is that the application depends on quirks >in an old '286 version (or as they put it: "works around bugs") and wouldn't >run when they tried to upgrade to a newer 286 version some time ago >so they expect the same from the current '386 version. >The original programmer is no longer around and no one wants to tackle >modifications beyond recompiling the C code and re-linking if that is >possible. Performance isn't really an issue. > >Les Mikesell > les@chinet.chi.il.us I am unaware of any calls that will allow you to link the items together. This is assuming that you are talking about the Interactive port of Unix and not the SCO port of Unix. There are no flags that are available to change the SCO Xenix libraries into AT&T/Interactive Unix libraries (at least none that I am aware of). Are these bugs in the Unify code or are they in the SCO code? Which version of Unify software are you currently executing? Since the work-arounds are there in the code, what do they work-around? I would strongly suggest that the user consider upgrading to the software that is made for the computer/OS. Performance is not the reason, but the ability to adequately maintain and upgrade your software would be. Please post a followup so I can at least know how you are doing. -- /*****************************************************************************/ /* Russell Grau (916) 920-9092 reg@unify.UUCP */ /* Disclaimer - "I speak for myself, not my company" */ /* {{ucdavis,csun,lll-crg}!csusac,pyramid,sequent}!unify!reg */