All well and good, but no one has answered my question as to how to access
them.  I guess I phrased the question poorly and that's why I am getting
philosophical responses.

To put it plainly, I am getting the following error messages when I try to
run the CI C compiled version...

UNRESOLVED EXTERNALS: getuid  (LDRERR 512)
UNRESOLVED EXTERNALS: chmod  (LDRERR 512)
UNRESOLVED EXTERNALS: getgrnam  (LDRERR 512)
UNRESOLVED EXTERNALS: chown  (LDRERR 512)
UNRESOLVED EXTERNALS: ioctl  (LDRERR 512)
UNRESOLVED EXTERNALS: dup2  (LDRERR 512)

How do I get rid of these?  I now have the following #define and #include
statements in my C code as well...

 #define _posix
 #define _POSIX_SOURCE
 #define _SOCKET_SOURCE

 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <string.h>

 #include <unistd.h>

 #include <string.h>
 #include <errno.h>

 #include <types.h>
 #include <socket.h>
 #include <netdb.h>
 #include <in.h>

But nothing seems to help.  I think I am just a little too close to the
problem and can't get the "big picture" any more.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------
| Michael P. Smith                                              |
| Sr. Systems Programmer                                        |
| The Hertz Corporation    [log in to unmask] (work)          |
| Oklahoma City, OK                                             |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
The thoughts, views and expressions contained in this message are those
of Michael P. Smith, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Hertz
Corporation.  To reply via email, remove the .xx from email address.


Lars Appel wrote in message ...
>Ken wrote...
>
>>compiling/linking from the shell is different than the CI.
>
>Yes, that's right. Compiler and/or linker use different flags
>and/or libraries for CCXL in the CI versus c89 in the Shell.
>
>>If you intend to run them from the CI, compile them from the CI.
>
>I typically don't encounter problems when running an NMPRG built
>with c89 from either the Shell or the CI. But their might be subtle
>issues when it comes to I/O redirection accessing argv[0] or getting
>Posix env vars (getenv() not HPCIGETVAR). So your milage may vary.
>
>I somehow suspect that chances are better for a c89 compiled program
>to run ok from the CI, than for a CCXL compiled program in the Shell.
>
>>The base block size for memory allocated by malloc() are based on
>>what loads your code, the CI or the shell.
>
>Oh. This was new to me. Learn something new every day :-) Maybe the
>malloc() functions used by CCXL code and c89 code come from different
>libraries. It's probably better to not mix the two flavours...
>
>Lars "not a C guru and not intending to become one" Appel ;-)
>