All -- While I am happy to help troubleshoot the issue, there really isn't enough information for me to help in any way. I don't know VistA, so I need to know what the M code was that didn't do what was expected, what the GT.M error is, etc. Thanx muchly.
-- Bhaskar
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Greg Woodhouse
Sent: Mon 12/19/2005 6:52 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] Patching blues
--- Cameron Schlehuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now the question (already posed by the folks in VA responsible for
> delivering the patch): Since all the VA sites have now reportedly
> installed
> the patch, why didn't any of them encounter the error?
> ... but GT.M bailed when it tried to compile the
> whole
> routine.)
>
I suspect the routine is "needed" once you try to link to it. Maybe
someone (Bhaskar?) more familiar with GT.M internals can address this.
Then again, it should be easy enough to test. A possibility that
perhaps needs to be considered, though, is that static analysis based
on locally available information may exclude some bad code, e.g.,
S:0 X=$ZBADCALL
but not
S:$G(^%ZOSF("ZERO")) X=$ZBADCALL
===
Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Interaction is the mind-body problem of computing."
--Philip L. Wadler
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
<<winmail.dat>>
