Re: [Tiny-cobol-users] Error while loading shared libraries

[David E. <de...@us...>]

Vince Coen wrote:

 > ...

The problems you have encountered with shared libraries are not TC, or 
COBOL, specific.
This is a UN*X administration issue, and chances are that you will 
encounter this problem again.

A quick solution is to move the relavent objects from the their 
'/usr/local' to the '/usr' sub-directories.

As for running the test_suite perl script, in the 'lib' directory type 
'make clean' and then 'make static-libs'.
This should enable you to run the test_suite perl script with out any 
modifications.

 > ...
 > I'm assuming the RT shared libs are similar to MF?

I'm not familiar with MF products, so I can't comment.


 > Allowing for strong Ram facilities Can I not just
 > compile the whole program to link all required
 > modules and libraries together and would this be the
 > fastest way to load and run?

I'm not sure what mean.
Have you looked at the 'htcobrun' in the 'cobrun' directory.


 > Also using the configure option of MF compatable what
 > exactly does this do?

There is only two options, really.

The first relates to the 'ACCEPT identifier FROM COMMAND-LINE' verb.
In UN*X the first command line parameter is always the actual program 
name (argv[0]).
Some COBOL compilers do include the program name (ARGV[1] ... argv[n]).
See 'test.code/test17' for an example.

The second relates to the 'SELECT file-name ASSIGN TO EXTERNAL 
{identifier | literal}' verb. The 'EXTERNAL' option relates the internal 
file-name to actual file-name using environment variables.
Some COBOL compilers add a prefix, such as 'DD_' to the environment 
variables.
See 'test.code/test19' for an example.


There is also the 'DISPLAY/ACCEPT LINE/POS' variation, which is MF 
specific. But that is always usable.


 > I cannot see any documentation on this or what language set
 > is available in the compiler at this time.

Well, English only I'm afraid.

There is an configure option for some languages. But even those are 
limited to man, command line help files but no run-time.
And even the very limited documentation translations are not very 
current, as I could not get any volunteers to do the translations.


 > Is the CVS version more up to date and reasonably stable or
 > is it best to stick to the archives in the download area?

Well, the CVS version is relatively stable, but there is not much 
difference between the CVS and 0.63 versions.


 > Out of interest what problems would there be to use tc
 > on a 64 bit system
 > i.e., Dual 2 core E6600 using a mandriva x86-64 Linux system
 > install (It uses both 32 and 64 bit libraries?

I have no idea even if TC will compile an run properly on a 64-bit system.
Personally, I have no plans to do any work on TC for 64-bit systems.