Users of RM/Cobol-85 on SCO XENIX: help with missing runtime.o

Sun Dec 23 12:10:00 AEST 1990

I'm  going to try this once more, then give up.  The reason I  am
going  to  try again is that I can't believe that among  all  the
systems  connected to the Net, no one is running RM/Cobol-85 with
SCO  XENIX/V  2.3  who  have the file  "runtime.o"  in  their  RM
distribution  set.   This file got accidentally blown  away,  our
original  RM diskettes were misplaced during an office move,  our
diskette  copies  are corrupted and can't be read, and  our  tape
archive  of  the entire Cobol application, which was supposed  to
include the rmcobol directory, doesn't.

I  really do need just the one file "runtime.o".  I will  explain
why.

We  use  RM/Cobol-85  2.02  to run our  accounting  system,  MCBA
Classic.   When  you  buy MCBA, you have the choice of  buying  a
"preconfigured"  Cobol  runtime  from them, or buying  the  Cobol
separately   and   configuring  it   yourself.   Since  we   were
distributing Texas Instruments products at the time, our discount
on  RM/Cobol  was  better  than MCBA offered,  so  we  bought  it
separately.

Part  of  the MCBA installation involves taking an MCBA  supplied
file  (mcba.o)  and moving it into your rmcobol  directory.   You
then  make a couple of small modifications to Makefile and sub.c,
so they know about mcba.o.  Then you type "make runcobol" and you
"configure" the Cobol runtime to be able to work in a special way
with the MCBA accounting system.

My  problem  began  when  I was shipped a 286  version  of  Cobol
development  rather than 386.  The compile complained that I  was
mixing 286 and 386 code together (all the .o Cobol files were 286
and  the  mcba.o  was 386), so I moved the mcba.c file  into  the
directory  and began experimenting with different compile  flags.
I finally hit the "-compat" flag which supposedly was to make 286
binaries.   This  compiled the mcba.c into a 286 mcba.o  and  the
rest of the compile went fine.

The resultant "runcobol" that this produced worked fine...for one
user!  As soon as a 2nd user tried to run the accounting they got
a library error and kicked out.  I was able to have an analyst at
MCBA duplicate this problem.  The bottom line is:  if you compile
a  286 runtime on a 386 system and run on a 386, it only supports
one  user;   if you compile a 286 runtime on a 286  system,  then
move the runtime to a 386 system, it supports multiple users.

Great!   All I needed now was a 286 system running SCO XENIX so I
could  load RM/Cobol-85 onto it, recompile the runtime, then move
it  back to my 386 and live happily ever after in multiuser land.
I  have  located two people through the Net who are  running  the
right  environments  and have offered to compile my runcobol  for
me.   I  have sent them the files needed for this (including  the
mcba.c  file),  but I have lost the file "runtime.o" from  my  RM
distribution.

I  don't  know  how  significant the version of  RM  is  to  this
runtime.o  file.  It is not even distributed in all versions.   I
have  a client running an Altos system and their same RM/Cobol-85
2.02  doesn't  have  a  runtime.o   file  in  the  "/usr/rmcobol"
directory.   I  think  it  must be specific to the  SCO  XENIX  V
platform.   If  you  have  a "runtime.o"  file  in  your  rmcobol
directory,  I would love to have it.  I have a properly  licensed
copy  of  RM/Cobol-85 development 286.  Following is  the  output
from the runcobol command on our system.

I  don't  think  I  should have much problem getting  what  I  am
looking for, with all the thousands of systems on the Net.  Since
I  am  only  asking for one file which, without the rest  of  the
RM/Cobol-85  system  is useless, I don't anticipate  any  ethical
concerns.

If  you  have stayed with me so far perhaps you can help me.   If
this  last plea fails I see no alternative than to buy another RM
runtime.   I  have even contacted Ryan-McFarland to see  if  they
would  sell  me another runtime.o.  I was told it was  not  their
policy to do this and to make an exception for me .....  you know
the  line someone gives you when they are trying to justify their
position of non-assistance.

If you think you have what I need, please email me before sending
the  file.  The last time I asked for this I received a couple in
the mail that were from the wrong versions of Xenix.

Here's hoping....
-- 
Bill Irwin    -       The Westrheim Group     -    Vancouver, BC, Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
uunet!van-bc!twg!bill     (604) 431-9600 (voice) |     UNIX Systems
bill at twg.bc.ca            (604) 430-4329 (fax)   |     Integration