19990818: McIDAS 7.6 ...sort of works (cont.)

>From: address@hidden
>Organization: SMSU
>Keywords: 199908122231.QAA22964 McIDAS-X,-XCD 7.60

Bill,

>Well, I'm putting you through your paces for little effect.
>I believe there are 3 sources of error in this process...
>1. I somehow or other did not have XCD done right...when I
>re did it most things worked out.

OK, your redo of XCD most likely resulted in versions of ingebin.k,
ingetext.k, and startxcd.k that would work.  The fact that you
are getting MD files created says that the data monitors are
working.  The string table stuff is bothersome, however.

>2. I have made a serious number of mistakes through assumption.
>And these mistakes have been propagated as questions to you.

No problem on my part.

>3. Fatigue...I find the www pages quite fatiguing to work with...
>my son disagrees.

I am sorry for this.  I too find the web pages easy to work with (I
agree with your son).  I have heard, however, from several people
(recent workshop attendees) that they would rather have hardcopy.

>I think most of my previous questions/problems have or will go away..

I sure hope so.  I hate to see people struggle with new installs.

>I will get back to you on strings on Thursday sometime if this
>continues to be a problem...indications are that it probably isn't.

OK, I'll be on the lookout.

>BUT....I do have one for you:  why this:
>
>SL A  AR 22 MDF=10 PTYPE=PRE  DEV=T arwr.txt
>Program terminated, segmentation violation

SL is probably bombing due to the change in the surface MD file schema.
SL is a command that is going away.  You should switch to use of
SFCLIST instead.  It is not only Y2K capable, but it provides a lot
more functionality as well.

>This is both from batch and from interactive....

The cause would be the same.

>to clarify another
>comment I made earlier...my batch programs kick off with only
>one frame defined by mcenv,

OK, you are going with the default.

>but a number of them also died with
>segmentation faults...upping it to 3 frames (didn't try 2) 
>seemed to cure that.

I don't like the sound of this at all.  Given that the BATCH files
never have to run a mcimage invocation, this problem can have nothing
to do with you having to make the library that you need on 4.2 to get
the X stuff to work.

>And no, they don't access more that 1 frame.

It would certainly be interesting to find out exactly what is going
wrong in the batch scripts.  The fact that you specify more frames
but only use one tells me that the problem is probably related to
a pointer or an array overflowing its bounds.

>Thanks again.  Goin' home.

Talk to you later...

Tom