CompuServe Thread

Forum unknown · Amiga at Work

#COMPLEX bug!

7 messages in this thread
#117058From: Brian RockApr 1, 1988 9:06 PM
I'm addressing this to you, although it may not necessarily be a problem you can help me with. I'm running a very complex environment, one component of which is FaccII. Others are ARexx,WShell,TxED+,ASDG recoverable RAM disk VD0: and Arp. With the addition of WShell, the whole environment became a bit brittle and when I added TxED+ a few days ago, it's downright explosive. Everything seems to settle when I remove FaccII, but I !LOVE! FaccII and don't want to eliminate it from what is an extremely nice working environment. I'm running a 1.5 Meg Amiga 1000, two floppies, with 512 buffers for FaccII. Facction shows at bootup that I have about 900K memory left, roughly split between CHIP and FAST. If you, or anyone else might have any informatin about what might be going on, I would deeply appreciate it. The guru message, which I get when I hit on the (empty) USER menu in TxED+ is '00000003.00C02672', which to me says some sort of addressing error, if I read my gurus right. Thanks in advance for your time!
#117115From: Brian RockApr 2, 1988 9:59 AM
I have a few more observations to add. Removal of FaccII improves the situation, but I still can crash, coming out of Diga!, for example. I forgot to mention that I also boot up with PopCLI and ConMan. I'm a bit vague on stack settings; do any of these programs need more than default stack size, that anyone knows of (other than Diga!)? And do future applications inherit a new stack size setting? It would seem logical, but I don't recall ever seeing it written down somewhere. Thanks, again.
#117910From: Perry S. Kivolowitz/ASDApr 8, 1988 12:35 AM
Brian, keeping in mind I am not even remotely denigrating the excellent work of JT and BH (for popcli and conman respectively) both of those programs have been show to cause crashes in several of their respective versions. Removing FaccII really has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the problem. The “observed'' difference is caused by the presence or absence of large amounts of free memory.
#118359From: Brian RockApr 10, 1988 4:36 PM
Perry, Yes, I think the problem is with WShell. But interesting to note, I switched the order of how I bring up my various tools, so that FaccII came up last, and things seem considerably more stable. I didn't mean to imply that FaccII was the cause of the problem, but since I run with many buffers, it contributed indirectly by chewing up free memory. So I'll drop a line to Bill Hawes and see if he's aware and perhaps working on a fix. Thanks for your reply. … Brian
#118359From: Brian RockApr 10, 1988 4:36 PM
Perry, Yes, I think the problem is with WShell. But interesting to note, I switched the order of how I bring up my various tools, so that FaccII came up last, and things seem considerably more stable. I didn't mean to imply that FaccII was the cause of the problem, but since I run with many buffers, it contributed indirectly by chewing up free memory. So I'll drop a line to Bill Hawes and see if he's aware and perhaps working on a fix. Thanks for your reply. … Brian
#117910From: Perry S. Kivolowitz/ASDApr 8, 1988 12:35 AM
Brian, keeping in mind I am not even remotely denigrating the excellent work of JT and BH (for popcli and conman respectively) both of those programs have been show to cause crashes in several of their respective versions. Removing FaccII really has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the problem. The “observed'' difference is caused by the presence or absence of large amounts of free memory.
#117115From: Brian RockApr 2, 1988 9:59 AM
I have a few more observations to add. Removal of FaccII improves the situation, but I still can crash, coming out of Diga!, for example. I forgot to mention that I also boot up with PopCLI and ConMan. I'm a bit vague on stack settings; do any of these programs need more than default stack size, that anyone knows of (other than Diga!)? And do future applications inherit a new stack size setting? It would seem logical, but I don't recall ever seeing it written down somewhere. Thanks, again.