Lahey Support
08-15-2003, 01:24 AM
Hi Gary:
Lahey fixed the "thin executables problem" (some people didn't think it was a
problem) with patch 95.5"e" I think. Sometime late last fall anyway. Check the
cumulative corrections to LF95.5 file on their web site.
If you don't specify -trace, symbol tables will now be omitted from the .exe
file
Mike Milgram
Hargraves Gary wrote:
> Hi all
>
> THIN EXECUTABLES
>
> I can recall in recent times some traffic regarding a switch that prevents
> binding of certain library functions (and hence overly fat executables) in
> certain circumstances. Would someone pls briefly remind me of the details -
> I seem to have misplaced my record of this traffic.
>
> (ANYONE who doesn't like cheap comment can STOP READING NOW......
>
> .......I see you're still reading.)
>
> The latest InVircible (IV Interceptor) picked up this happy virus OK - but
> it's a bit of a pest on the system. Was the version of Norton's that was
> unsuccessful for someone an older version ?
>
> The suggestion of trying out the virus with this Norton's must be wry
> humour. A bit like trying out a suspect batch of condoms to tell for sure.
>
> As regards the source of the virus.....no-one is pointing the finger. So,
> even though it's a lot of fun on the forum, there is no need to take
> offence.
>
> But, 'an ounce of prevention.....'.
>
> Gaz
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send to [address removed] the following
> as the first and only line of the message body:
> unsubscribe fortran
> ----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send to [address removed] the following
as the first and only line of the message body:
unsubscribe fortran
----------------------------------------------------------
Lahey fixed the "thin executables problem" (some people didn't think it was a
problem) with patch 95.5"e" I think. Sometime late last fall anyway. Check the
cumulative corrections to LF95.5 file on their web site.
If you don't specify -trace, symbol tables will now be omitted from the .exe
file
Mike Milgram
Hargraves Gary wrote:
> Hi all
>
> THIN EXECUTABLES
>
> I can recall in recent times some traffic regarding a switch that prevents
> binding of certain library functions (and hence overly fat executables) in
> certain circumstances. Would someone pls briefly remind me of the details -
> I seem to have misplaced my record of this traffic.
>
> (ANYONE who doesn't like cheap comment can STOP READING NOW......
>
> .......I see you're still reading.)
>
> The latest InVircible (IV Interceptor) picked up this happy virus OK - but
> it's a bit of a pest on the system. Was the version of Norton's that was
> unsuccessful for someone an older version ?
>
> The suggestion of trying out the virus with this Norton's must be wry
> humour. A bit like trying out a suspect batch of condoms to tell for sure.
>
> As regards the source of the virus.....no-one is pointing the finger. So,
> even though it's a lot of fun on the forum, there is no need to take
> offence.
>
> But, 'an ounce of prevention.....'.
>
> Gaz
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send to [address removed] the following
> as the first and only line of the message body:
> unsubscribe fortran
> ----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send to [address removed] the following
as the first and only line of the message body:
unsubscribe fortran
----------------------------------------------------------