Re: [9fans] plan9 iso image cont.
did you enable *acpi= when booting 9front? see the section Boot at [1]. pap [1] http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/wiki/troubleshooting
Re: [9fans] plan9 iso image
Terry Wendt wrote: > Thank you for your response erik. The machine I'm trying to boot this > on is an "old" dell inspiron 530. 9front runs fine on my dell inspiron 530. i have to boot it with *acpi= in plan9.ini, though. pap
Re: [9fans] sam on Windows?
Brian Vito wrote: > What is the current status of sam on Windows? Does anyone have a > version that runs under Windows 7? The one from http://ib.wmipf.de/pf9.html > doesn't seem to work anymore. Thanks very much. > latest version is here: https://bitbucket.org/knieriem/pf9/downloads i haven't tried it though.
Re: [9fans] doing a native awk port (was Re: Bug in print(2) g verb)
I am actually the one who asked bwk for his test suite, which he later put on github. I started with some gawk tests while waiting for the test suite, however. As for plan9's awk, it runs on ape. I am trying to make it run without ape. I had thought of starting with the latest version of awk, but boyd's port was nearly complete (it's in contrib). All I've been doing is making small bugfixes here and there. I'm not finished yet, but it won't be too much longer, hopefully. Perhaps after that I can take a look at the latest awk.
Re: [9fans] Bug in print(2) g verb
I would also like it if %g acted the same in plan9 as everywhere else (printing 0.1 instead of .1 in my example). That's also really easy to change. It doesn't make sense for plan9port's %g to be different from plan9, because now you cannot even count on both prints to work the same way. Since printf's %g works like plan9port right now, it would make sense to change plan9's version. I don't know the history behind %g's current behaviour, however.
Re: [9fans] Bug in print(2) g verb
I would also like it if %g acted the same in plan9 as everywhere else (printing 0.1 instead of .1 in my example). That's also really easy to change. It doesn't make sense for plan9port's %g to be different from plan9, because now you cannot even count on both prints to work the same way. Since printf's %g works like plan9port right now, it would make sense to change plan9's version. I don't know the history behind %g's current behaviour, however.
Re: [9fans] Bug in print(2) g verb
Plan9port's implementation of fltfmt.c seems
different enough to me that it isn't possible to
simply take the fix from there and add it to
plan9. Perhaps I'm missing something.
The g verb already acts differently in plan9port
and native plan 9: print("%g\n", 0.1) prints .1 in
plan 9 and 0.1 in plan9port. I don't why they're
different, but the former behaviour is unfortunate
for the native port of awk I am completing
(started by boyd).
Others are of course welcome to come up with fixes
for this problem.
Re: [9fans] Bug in print(2) g verb
Without the change, it should get
any example wrong. This is with
native Plan 9, though. Plan9port's
fltfmt.c is not the same, so it must
be working correctly.
term% cat foo.c
#include
#include
void
main(void)
{
print("%.5g\n", 12345.67890);
exits(nil);
}
term% 8.out
12345.7
