Subj : SCFG uifc library init er
To   : Nightfox
From : Digital Man
Date : Thu Nov 13 2014 12:39 am

 Re: SCFG uifc library init error
 By: Nightfox to Digital Man on Wed Nov 12 2014 08:17 pm

>Re: SCFG uifc library init error
>   By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Tue Nov 11 2014 15:52:33
>  >> The height buffer is set to 300 lines.  (And the width buffer is set
>  >> to 100 lines.)
>
>  DM> Can you try creating or opening other command prompt windows (e.g. an
>  DM> 80x25) and see if you can execute scfg if them?
>
> I'm able to run it successfully from an 80x25 command prompt window.  I
> also tried an 80x24 window, and SCFG resized the height to 25 lines.  I
> also tried 79x25, and SCFG resized the width to 80.  I also tried 80x26,
> and then I got the uifc -2 error.  I also found that 81x25 produced the
> uifc -2 error.  So it seems that sizes larger than 80x25 produce the uifc
> -2 error, whereas if the command prompt window is smaller than it should
> be, SCFG will resize the window to what it needs.
>
>  DM> Also, it be good to know if other uifc apps (echocfg, syncterm) are
>  DM> able to be run in that same problematic command prompt window or not.
>
> I tried SyncTerm 1.0b, and it seems to run fine regardless of the command
> prompt window size.  SyncTerm 1.0b launched in a separate window, whereas
> SCFG ran in the same command prompt window that I ran it from.

If you run SyncTerm withthe "-iW" option, I suspect you'd see the same
behavior as current SCFG behavior (assuming the SyncTerm is built with the
lateset from cvs.synchro.net, or at least on/after Sept-24). SyncTERM runs in
"SDL mode" (bitmap graphics mode) by default, and inthat mode it's not
susceptible to this bug.

The cause of this behavior (SCFG fails to resize the window if it's not already





























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































a valid VESA mode dimension), appears to be caused by a recent change to the