On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:16 AM Tony Aiuto via cctalk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 11:48 PM Jim Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 8:07 PM Tony Aiuto via cctalk > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think that is an artifact of the files being created with the wrong > > names. > > > For example, with tape 169249, after you skip the UFDs, tito -t prints > > > > > > (SYS) .SHR 1977-01-26 22:22 [1,4] > > > (SYS) .LOW 1977-01-26 22:23 [1,4] > > > (SYS) .SHR 1986-08-19 03:53 [1,4] > > > (SYS) .LOW 1975-10-24 14:52 [1,4] > > > (SYS) .SAV 1964-01-02 00:01 [1,4] > > > (SYS) .SAV 1964-01-02 00:01 [1,4] > > > > > > All the file names are missing. That seems not right. > > > > Very not right, because this is what tito -t is giving me: > > > > (SYS) PIP .SHR 1977-01-26 22:22 [1,4] > > (SYS) PIP .LOW 1977-01-26 22:23 [1,4] > > (SYS) LOGINN.SHR 1986-08-19 03:53 [1,4] > > (SYS) COBOL .LOW 1975-10-24 14:52 [1,4] > > (SYS) BINCON.SAV 1964-01-02 00:01 [1,4] > > (SYS) VPDATA.SAV 1964-01-02 00:01 [1,4] > > > > Those are the first 6 after the UFDs, and extensions and > > date/timestamps match yours. I don't have any, at least on 169249, > > missing the first part of the file name. > > > > Jim > > > > Well. I'm stumped right now. I verified the tape checksum again, and even > got a fresh copy from http://vtda.org/bits/software/DEC/PDP-10/tymshare/. > That is not the problem. > > I'm building tito on a generic Debian linux (x86_64, debian 4.19, gcc > 8.3.0) so I doubt this is a portability problem. I'll try again next > weekend. > Compile -O0? Maybe there's some UB behavior that's screwing you up... Warner
