Very Computer

One of our customers is reporting a SIGILL on a pwr3 machine from our
executable.  He is running AIX 4.3.2;  the executable is compiled with
qarch=com on a ppc machine running AIX 4.1.x (I think x=2, but don't
remember at the moment).

SIGILL means "Illegal instruction".  I would expect such a signal in
situations in which one attempted to run, say, a pwr2 executable on a pwr3
machine or vice-versa -- but never for a -qarch=com executable on any AIX
platform.

Can anyone guess what the problem might be?

Also, I once found, on another platform, that I thought I was compiling to a
specific architecture but either mislabeled the executable or else left the
architecture-specific feature out of some link or compilation line.  On that
machine (SGI), a "file" command told me the architecture;  for instance,
"file foo" on SGI tells you whether the executable "foo" is a mips2, mips3
or mips4 executable. (These mips designations are like com, pwr2, etc.).

On AIX, "file" doesn't tell you whether the executable is pwr1, pwr2, ppc or
pwr3.  I asked the development support line whether there is any other
command one can run on an executable that will give this information.  I was
told that there is not.  This strains credulity.  So I thought I'd ask here:
is there any "cmd" I can run on an executable "foo" such that "cmd foo" will
give me this information?

Thanks,
-P.

Quote:>Also, I once found, on another platform, that I thought I was compiling to a
>specific architecture but either mislabeled the executable or else left the
>architecture-specific feature out of some link or compilation line.  On that
>machine (SGI), a "file" command told me the architecture;  for instance,
>"file foo" on SGI tells you whether the executable "foo" is a mips2, mips3
>or mips4 executable. (These mips designations are like com, pwr2, etc.).

>On AIX, "file" doesn't tell you whether the executable is pwr1, pwr2, ppc or
>pwr3.  I asked the development support line whether there is any other
>command one can run on an executable that will give this information.  I was
>told that there is not.  This strains credulity.  So I thought I'd ask here:
>is there any "cmd" I can run on an executable "foo" such that "cmd foo" will
>give me this information?

/*

   qarch.c: Utility to find out which compiler and -qarch options
   were used for a binary.

   Copyright:

   Free software according GNU Public license

   AS Software Service AIX, Germany

   Compilation:
   either "make qarch"
   or     "cc -O -o qarch qarch.c"

   */

I do not know where the original location for this utility is, if you cannot
find it I have put my copy at <http://www.han.de/~jum/aix/qarch.c>.

--
Jens-Uwe Mager  <pgp-mailto:62CFDB25>

I can't thank you enough for the qarch executable. I'm home now, but when
I get back to work I'll download it.

Also, I was looking at dejanews for this and other AIX related issues.  What
I was looking at seemed to imply that SIGILL on AIX means "killed by the
operating system."  Is this right?

I was assuming that on AIX (as on SGI) SIGILL means "illegal instruction",
and that "killed by the operating system" would be SIGKILL.

I would happily RTFM, but at the moment I don't have a working AIX system I
can consult.  This will hopefully change verysoon.

Thanks,
-P.

main()
{
        void (*func)() = 0;

        func();

Quote:}