f$verify(0) from a program

[dschwarz]

Hi,

we want to do something like this (using fortran):

rtc = lib$spawn('dcl_proc',,mbxname,CLI$M_NOWAIT,,pid)

where mbxname represents a mailbox. This works fine, but with VERIFY on in the caller's environment, we get all the DCL of 'dcl_proc' in the mailbox. With SET NOVERIFY as the first line of 'dcl_proc' we still see that line in the mailbox.

How can we disable the caller's verify flag before calling lib$spawn and set it back to its original value after lib$spawn has completed. ?

[Karl Rohwedder · Accepted solution]

Insert as 1st line of procedure:

$ tmp = 'F$verify(0)'

regards Kalle

[dschwarz]

Ok, that works.
But we have to insert this as the first line in every procedure that will be traeted this way.
Is there a solution that can be implemented in the function which calls lib$spawn ?

[Wim Van den Wyngaert]

and
$ tmp='f$verify(tmp)'
as the last statement. Or it will stay off.

Wim

[Volker Halle]

I don't think there is an API available for turning off the DCL image and procedure verification bits from a program.

You could write some routine, which goes into supervisor mode to implement this...

But how about some intermediate DCL-procedure, which handles the verify flags and then calls the desired DCL-procedure, specified as a parameter like:

rtc = lib$spawn('new_proc dcl_proc',,mbxname,CLI$M_NOWAIT,,pid)

new_proc could then turn off verify, call dcl_proc, reset verify and exit.

Volker.

[Wim Van den Wyngaert]

But you can do a spawn with f$verify as command to change it (e.g. at startup of the program).

Wim

[Volker Halle]

Wim,

>But you can do a spawn with f$verify as
>command to change it (e.g. at startup of
>the program).

this would not turn off SET VERIFY in the main process, only in the sub-process, which would then exit immediately.

Volker.

[Hein van den Heuvel]

How about NOT feeding spawn the command file directly. Give it an input mailbox.
Send the 'f$verify'() first, then (probably!) send an $define sys$input sys$command, then feed it the @'file'?
Just a thought...

Or bulk-edit those command files already.
No big deal, possibly less work than reading these replies.

Hein.

[dschwarz]

Great answers.

I think we will 'Bulk edit' the procedures and give Hein's idea a try.

Thank you very much.

[Wim Van den Wyngaert]

Oeps. Volker is right.

But you can pass @x y
and do the F$ver in x.com and then do @y in x.com

fwiw

Wim