🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0ozzJ.DJA@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jjarrett@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (James Jarrett) writes:
...
>Next, how can I write a program so it doesn't need LOADFIX?  For my current
>project, it doesn't matter, since I only have 1 user, and she has DOS 5.0.
>My next project, however, is supposed to run on almost any machine.  I 
>cannot require LOADFIX, and I would like to be able to circumvent the 
>problem inside my program. 

It was my understanding that this problem only manifests if you use
EXEPACK on your (I.e., the developer's) executable file.  So, if you are
the developer, the easy solution is, "DON'T USE EXEPACK".

************************************************************************
Lackland's Laws:
	1.  Never be first.
	2.  Never be last.
	3.  Never volunteer for anything

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************

jjarrett@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (James Jarrett) writes:

>My DOS manual does not mention LOADFIX, so all I have is the HELP LOADFIX
>documentation.  How does it work and why is it necessary?

LOADFIX allocates memory up to the first 64K segment, then loads your
program at that point, avoiding the problems that occur when the code
segment is below the 64K boundary.  Normally only DOS is below this
boundary, but DOS 5 can load high and thus allow programs to run there.

>Next, how can I write a program so it doesn't need LOADFIX?

You must be doing something strange to generate a program that fails.
The only problems I have heard of are a buggy version of PKLITE and an
old bug appearing in the EXEPACK module from Microsoft.  Are you linking
with the /EXEPACK (or /PACK or whatever) option on your linker?  You
might just stop using that option, and see.

A program called LOWFIX (available at Simtel-20 and other archive sites)
will patch programs to fix their problems when loading below 64K.  See
what it thinks of your program.

-- 
#ifdef TRUE        | Fuzzy Fox (a.k.a. David DeSimone)       fuzzy@netcom.com
#define  TRUE   0  |
#define  FALSE  1  |  "911 Emergency Rescue Service - Can you hold, please?"
#endif             |

I have received some great information about loadfix, etc, but what I still
don't understand is why my program works when using LOADFIX and doesn't
when it isn't used.  This only occurs on some machines (configurations
vary widely, the only common factor being DOS 5 loaded high).  The program
was compiled under Borland C++ 3.1, which, as far as I can tell, does not
use packed executables.

Are there any other problems my program may have that just seem to be
cleared up by LOADFIX?  Are there other concerns about memory below 64K?

Thanks,
Jim

In article <1993Jan12.005245.9608@rei.com> fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox) writes:
>jjarrett@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (James Jarrett) writes:
>
>>My DOS manual does not mention LOADFIX, so all I have is the HELP LOADFIX
>>documentation.  How does it work and why is it necessary?
>
>LOADFIX allocates memory up to the first 64K segment, then loads your
>program at that point, avoiding the problems that occur when the code
>segment is below the 64K boundary.  Normally only DOS is below this
>boundary, but DOS 5 can load high and thus allow programs to run there.
>
>>Next, how can I write a program so it doesn't need LOADFIX?
>
>You must be doing something strange to generate a program that fails.

Yup.  The poster mentions that he is not, as far as he knows, using
EXEPACK, but it is possible that some compiler or linker is doing it or
the equivalent behind his back.  I would get LZEXE (from Simtel, et al),
and try running UPACKEXE on the executable file.  It might tell you
something...

************************************************************************
"The rich are different from you and me."
		- Fitzgerald -
"Yes.  They have more money."
		- Hemmingway -

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************

Unfortunately, I have tried LZEXE's UPACKEXE.EXE utility and it doesn't 
recognize Borland generated EXE files as packed (bad header error).

Jim