I'm trying to build a Pharlap version of a program, but dmc fails to find my 386link program. Even though it is on my PATH.

   dmc ident.c ..\lib\wattcpdf.lib x32.lib dosx32.lib @MAKE0000.@@@

386link ident -tc -l e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\phar 70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\pha r70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc d:\prog\dmc\lib\sdx

Can't run '386link', check PATH

>path
PATH=d:\prog\tc;c:\bat;e:\djgpp\bin;c:\perl;d:\prog\ow\binw;d:\hc\bin;d:\prog\wd osx\bin;c:\util;c:\util\zip;f:\windows\system32;e:\net\watt\bin;d:\phar70\bin;c:\4dos; e:\net\ppp;c:\util\norton

386link is in d:\phar70\bin.

Is it a problem with the long 386link cmd-line? If so, how can I make dmc put that in a response file?

dmc 8.34.12, Pharlap 7.0 SDK

-- 
Gisle V.

# rm /bin/laden
/bin/laden: Not found

Why do you want to use Pharlap?
I have used Pharlap, DOS4GW and DOSX as it came with Zortech/Symantec and now Digital Mars
C++ and found DOSX to be the clear winner. Unless you have specific reasons for using
Pharlap, you might be better of using DOSX.



Gisle Vanem wrote:

> I'm trying to build a Pharlap version of a program, but dmc fails to find my 386link program. Even though it is on my PATH.
>
>    dmc ident.c ..\lib\wattcpdf.lib x32.lib dosx32.lib @MAKE0000.@@@
>
> 386link ident -tc -l e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\phar 70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32 d:\pha r70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc d:\prog\dmc\lib\sdx
>
> Can't run '386link', check PATH
>
> >path
> PATH=d:\prog\tc;c:\bat;e:\djgpp\bin;c:\perl;d:\prog\ow\binw;d:\hc\bin;d:\prog\wd osx\bin;c:\util;c:\util\zip;f:\windows\system32;e:\net\watt\bin;d:\phar70\bin;c:\4dos; e:\net\ppp;c:\util\norton
>
> 386link is in d:\phar70\bin.
>
> Is it a problem with the long 386link cmd-line? If so, how can I make dmc put that in a response file?
>
> dmc 8.34.12, Pharlap 7.0 SDK
>
> --
> Gisle V.
>
> # rm /bin/laden
> /bin/laden: Not found

--
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote:

> Why do you want to use Pharlap?
> I have used Pharlap, DOS4GW and DOSX as it came with Zortech/Symantec and now Digital Mars
> C++ and found DOSX to be the clear winner. Unless you have specific reasons for using
> Pharlap, you might be better of using DOSX.

I assume you mean Flashtek's X32 when you say DOSX.
Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW.
Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO.

--gv

"Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> I assume you mean Flashtek's X32 when you say DOSX.
> Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW.
> Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO.

Flashtek is a pile of crap. It fails to run a simple "Hello world" program under Win-XP DOS-box.

>dmc -v2 -mx hello.c x32.lib
scppn -v2 -mx hello.c
Digital Mars C/C++ Compiler Version 8.34.12n
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 2000-2003.  All Rights Reserved.
Written by Walter Bright
www.digitalmars.com
 'hello.c'
  'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\stdio.h'
  'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\stdlib.h'
   'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\heapstat.h'
  'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\dos.h'
main
C/C++ Compiler complete. Code: 0x0015 (21) Data: 0x0017 (23) Time: 0.32 seconds

link d:\prog\dmc\lib\cx+hello,hello,,x32/noi;

> hello.exe causes a trap in NTVDM:
Illegal instruction at CS:0070 IP:03f1
OP: ff ff 00 00 00

--gv

Yes, the problem is the command line length is too long. It has to be 127 characters or less. To use a response file, you'll probably need to do the link separately. -Walter

"Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:bebv4p$en8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'm trying to build a Pharlap version of a program, but dmc fails to find my 386link program. Even though it is on my PATH.
>
>    dmc ident.c ..\lib\wattcpdf.lib x32.lib dosx32.lib @MAKE0000.@@@
>
> 386link ident -tc -l e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32
d:\phar
> 70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc e:\net\watt\lib\..\lib\wattcpdf d:\prog\dmc\lib\x32
d:\pha
> r70\lib\dosx32 exc_dmc d:\prog\dmc\lib\sdx
>
> Can't run '386link', check PATH
>
> >path
>
PATH=d:\prog\tc;c:\bat;e:\djgpp\bin;c:\perl;d:\prog\ow\binw;d:\hc\bin;d:\pro g\wd
>
osx\bin;c:\util;c:\util\zip;f:\windows\system32;e:\net\watt\bin;d:\phar70\bi n;c:\4dos;
> e:\net\ppp;c:\util\norton
>
> 386link is in d:\phar70\bin.
>
> Is it a problem with the long 386link cmd-line? If so, how can I make dmc
put
> that in a response file?
>
> dmc 8.34.12, Pharlap 7.0 SDK
>
> --
> Gisle V.
>
> # rm /bin/laden
> /bin/laden: Not found
>
>
>

Gisle Vanem wrote:

> "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote:
>
> > Why do you want to use Pharlap?
> > I have used Pharlap, DOS4GW and DOSX as it came with Zortech/Symantec and now Digital Mars
> > C++ and found DOSX to be the clear winner. Unless you have specific reasons for using
> > Pharlap, you might be better of using DOSX.
>
> I assume you mean Flashtek's X32 when you say DOSX.

Yup.

> Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW. Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO.

Oh yeah?
How long have you been using either one of them?

--
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

Gisle Vanem wrote:

> > I assume you mean Flashtek's X32 when you say DOSX.
> > Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW.
> > Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO.
>
> Flashtek is a pile of crap. It fails to run a simple "Hello world" program under Win-XP DOS-box.

That might or might not have anything to do with Flashtek.
Why would you want to run a 32 bits DOS application in a Windows XP command line
anyways???
I run DOS 32 bits on DOS and Win 32 bits console from a command line.

> >dmc -v2 -mx hello.c x32.lib
> scppn -v2 -mx hello.c
> Digital Mars C/C++ Compiler Version 8.34.12n
> Copyright (C) Digital Mars 2000-2003.  All Rights Reserved.
> Written by Walter Bright
> www.digitalmars.com
>  'hello.c'
>   'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\stdio.h'
>   'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\stdlib.h'
>    'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\heapstat.h'
>   'D:\PROG\DMC\BIN\..\include\dos.h'
> main
> C/C++ Compiler complete. Code: 0x0015 (21) Data: 0x0017 (23) Time: 0.32 seconds
>
> link d:\prog\dmc\lib\cx+hello,hello,,x32/noi;
>
> > hello.exe causes a trap in NTVDM:
> Illegal instruction at CS:0070 IP:03f1
> OP: ff ff 00 00 00

Have you tried the version on www.dosextender.com


--
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote:

> That might or might not have anything to do with Flashtek.
> Why would you want to run a 32 bits DOS application in a Windows XP command line
> anyways???
> I run DOS 32 bits on DOS and Win 32 bits console from a command line.

Why do you answer a question with an unrelated question?
I expect the same exe to run under Win-XP and plain DOS. Why keep
2 exes for the same job? If that's impossible with Flashtek, please
say so.

> Have you tried the version on www.dosextender.com

Do you mean the "*NEW VERSION* Updated May 15, 2001" ?
Yes I do; is there a newer version?

--gv

"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote:

> > Why Pharlap? Because it's far superiour to Flashtek and DOS4GW. Only djgpp/CWSDPMI is better IMHO.
>
> Oh yeah?
> How long have you been using either one of them?

Pharlap since 1992, djgpp since 1994.

--gv

Gisle Vanem wrote:

> "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote:
>
> > That might or might not have anything to do with Flashtek.
> > Why would you want to run a 32 bits DOS application in a Windows XP command line
> > anyways???
> > I run DOS 32 bits on DOS and Win 32 bits console from a command line.
>
> Why do you answer a question with an unrelated question?

Oh, is it unrelated?
I would not perfer to run a Formula-1 race car on a dirt road...

> I expect the same exe to run under Win-XP and plain DOS. Why keep 2 exes for the same job? If that's impossible with Flashtek, please say so.

I do not know if that is possible with DOSX or not. I have used it up to W2K's command line where it didn't seem to be a problem. I have not actively used ANY dos extender in development for the last 3/4 years.

There is no reason to explain the benefits of running a native executable.

What you can do is write a WINSTUB.exe that executes <program>X.exe (DOSX version) when you are NOT running on Win32 and run the native Win32 when you are...

> > Have you tried the version on www.dosextender.com
> Do you mean the "*NEW VERSION* Updated May 15, 2001" ?
> Yes I do; is there a newer version?

Not that I am aware off.

--
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper