[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

20010109: error while running McIDAS-X 7.701 on OSF/1 (cont. )

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: 20010109: error while running McIDAS-X 7.701 on OSF/1 (cont. )
  • Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:02:47 -0700
>From: "Alliss, Randall J." <address@hidden>
>Organization: TASC
>Keywords: 200101031328.f03DSuo12756 McIDAS-X X display visual CIRCLE

Randy,

>I have been playing with the Unidata 7.701 on my Dec-Alpha and have been
>noticing some strange things.
>
>1) When i first launch McIDAS the mcidas Image window is red. When i place
>the cursor in that window it turns black (the way it should have been at
>launch) and remains that way.

This sounds like McIDAS is allocating a private color map for the
McIDAS-X session.  This will be done when your X window session already
has applications that are using up the majority of the available colors.
the solution is to either exit those other applications and then
start McIDAS, or to reconfigure your X server to run in something
other than 8-bit mode.

>2) I tried using the CIRCLE command yesterday and got some error messages on
>the dec-term window from which i launched mcidas. I was trying to place a
>circle of 124nm in red on one of the radar images (per discussion with Russ
>Dengal). The error message was the following:
>
>unaligned access process id=a number <circle.k> va=some hexidecimal number
>ra=some hexidecimal number pc=some hexidecimal number inst=some hexidecimal
>number
>
>i actually get several of these error messages per CIRCLE command, all with
>different process id's.
>
>Any ideas?

I have never seen this one.  It certainly warrants a closer look.  I
will try to reproduce the problem if you can send me the exact invocation
command line that you were running.

Tom