Operating System - OpenVMS
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

device Access violation

 
Highlighted
Jan van den Ende
Honored Contributor

Re: device Access violation

Lim,

If you follow Jon's idea, then where he wrote "LIM", use: TASADM
as that is the username that barfed in the original post.

But I prefer Willem's approach.

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe
Don't rust yours pelled jacker to fine doll missed aches.
Jon Pinkley
Honored Contributor

Re: device Access violation

I didn't see Willem's until after I posted my response. I agree that if TASADM is in a limited UIC group, his suggestion is better.

Or to make it dynamic for a single user

$ if f$edit(f$getjpi("","USERNAME"),"TRIM") .eqs. "''F$TRNLNM("SYLOGIN_VERIFY_USER")'" then set verify

Then to turn on verification for user TASADM

$ define/system SYLOGIN_VERIFY_USER TASADM

To turn off

$ deassign/system SYLOGIN_VERIFY_USER

Jon
it depends
Phillip Thayer
Esteemed Contributor

Re: device Access violation

I didn't think you could simply comment out the f$verify function in DCL. I thought that was one of the only lexical functions that still gets executed even if the DCL line is commented out. Is that not the case?
Once it's in production it's all bugs after that.
Jan van den Ende
Honored Contributor

Re: device Access violation

@ Phillip:

>>>
I thought that was one of the only lexical functions that still gets executed even if the DCL line is commented out. Is that not the case?
<<<

Well, partly correct!.

Compare

$ ! F$verify(x)
and
$ ! 'F$verify(x)

The only difference is the apostrophe right before F$, and the difference it makes is that the first is NOT, and the latter IS getting executed.

hth

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe
Don't rust yours pelled jacker to fine doll missed aches.