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

Re: OS/2 2.11 , C-Set ++

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 Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated.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: Re: OS/2 2.11 , C-Set ++
  • Date: Wed, 06 Jul 1994 08:28:21 -0600
>From: address@hidden (Brian Lincoln)
>Organization: SSESCO
>Keywords: 199407051537.AA00868 netCDF 2.3 OS/2 2.11

Brian,

>Unfortunately I am sort of in a bad position here, but
>my boss has been trying to compile netCDF 2.3 on OS/2 2.11
>with the IBM C-Set++ compiler series.

We do not have this compiler at Unidata (nor are we likely to get it).

>He tells me he has had a lot of problems, with the most
>fatal being that the OS/2 rename function does not act as
>it does in unix and that some of the bytes are getting swapped
>wrong in the test programs.

I looked in our tracking system to try and find an original inquiry about
this but didn't find any.  

>He said he looked around for help at your site.

Did he contact us about this problem? If so, where?

>Does there exist some help pages or fixes necessary to get netCDF to go 
>under OS/2 ?

No, we have compiled/used the netCDF on OS/2 1.3, 2.0, and 2.1 using the
Microsoft C 6.0 compiler with no problems.  The files named msoft.mk represent
the method we used to build the netCDF in OS/2.  Sometime this summer, I will
be updating the makefiles and trying to build the package using GCC, but
this will have to wait until I get out from under all of the other pressing
things that have stacked up.

>Thanks !

If you send some output, I will take a look to see if I can see anything
obvious.  I can't promise a high level of effort since we don't have
a comparable environment in which to investigate the problems.

re: was contact made?
>No, just poked around looking for information...
 
re: estimate of the problem location
>I guess I will believe that it is a makefile problem, with correct
>flags not being set (such as the swap-byte flag which wasnt set and the
>rename function not working, etc, etc.. ) and forward your message to the
>person doing the work...  Thanks.

Tom Yoksas