Re: [9fans] Git/fs: Possibly Usable

excellent work! thank you! -- cinap

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a?struct?

All the 9legacy patches are available on http://9legacy.org/patch.html. Most of the compiler changes consist in keeping them in sync with Charles' updates, available on https://bitbucket.org/plan9-from-bell-labs/plan9. The (partial) C99 changes were done long ago, in March 2006 and before.

Re: [9fans] Git/fs: Possibly Usable

Very cool! Thank you. On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:48 PM wrote: > It was mentioned on this list a short while ago. Now, it's > more or less at the point where it works for me. Expect > many bugs and problems, and many more missing tools, but > "the rest is just scripting". > > One caveat I have:

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a?struct?

> > In the present case, this appears to be a compiler bug. The aforementioned > reference to n1548 sec 6.7.9 para 10 is incorrect in that there _is_ an > explicit initializer here. The relevant text in the standard is sec 6.7.9 > pp 16-21, which specifies that in the event that an explicit

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct?

> What is "be initialized implicitly the same as objects that have > static storage duration" mean? It refers back to the second part of case 10 of that section. On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 15:53, Kyohei Kadota wrote: > Thank you for a reply. > > I read spec on

Re: [9fans] Git/fs: Possibly Usable

Cool! It's very interesting what implement Git in native Plan 9 style to me. 2019年4月2日(火) 13:48 : > > It was mentioned on this list a short while ago. Now, it's > more or less at the point where it works for me. Expect > many bugs and problems, and many more missing tools, but > "the rest is just

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct?

Thank you for a reply. I read spec on http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf then I'm confusing. This spec describes Initialization: > 6.7.8 Initialization, p127 > > 19 The initialization shall occur in initializer list order, each initializer > provided for a > particular

Re: [9fans] Git/fs: Possibly Usable

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 12:49 AM wrote: > One caveat I have: Git's index file format is a bit > boneheaded, so I'm ignoring it. The index doesn't affect > the wire protocol, so this isn't an interoperability issue, > unless you share the same physical repository on both > Plan 9 and Unix. If you

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct?

I ran this code on 386 machine on QEMU based public VPC service. 2019年4月2日(火) 9:27 Skip Tavakkolian : > > It should initialize to zero. 8c and 5c both do the right thing here. > > Which distribution and cputype? > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 8:34 AM Kyohei Kadota wrote: >> >> Hi, 9fans. I use

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct?

I interpret it as: initialize it like a static variable. On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 7:53 AM Kyohei Kadota wrote: > Thank you for a reply. > > I read spec on http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf > then I'm confusing. > This spec describes Initialization: > > > 6.7.8

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct?

like this: #include #include struct option { int n; char *s; int flags; }; int main(void) { struct option opt = { 1, "test" }; static struct option opt2; printf("%d %s %x\n", opt.n, opt.s, opt.flags); printf("%x\n", opt2.flags); return 0; } On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:02 AM Skip Tavakkolian

Re: [9fans] Are there disadvantages to walk?

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Brian L. Stuart wrote: > > The only complaint I've had about walk was the expectation > in the protocol that servers produce the list of Qids all > the way down. That got in the way when experimenting > with a server that used a hash table of full path names >

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct?

I see, I understand. thank you, Skip, Charles. 2019年4月3日(水) 0:06 Charles Forsyth : > > >> What is "be initialized implicitly the same as objects that have >> static storage duration" mean? > > > It refers back to the second part of case 10 of that section. > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 15:53, Kyohei

Re: [9fans] Git/fs: Possibly Usable

> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 12:49 AM wrote: >> One caveat I have: Git's index file format is a bit >> boneheaded, so I'm ignoring it. The index doesn't affect >> the wire protocol, so this isn't an interoperability issue, >> unless you share the same physical repository on both >> Plan 9 and Unix.

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct?

yes, how true. On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 18:22, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > Also worth noting that any padding bits are zeroed as well for > aggregate and union types. Not just setting all pointer values to NULL > and arithmetic types to positive or unsigned zero. > > Op di 2 apr. 2019 om 08:17

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a?struct?

Charles Forsyth once said: > I didn't look at the code closely enough earlier, but remembered something > from years ago this morning. It's a bug. It isn't platform specific. > There is an existing fix in 9front (I think it came from there) but it's > horrible. Still, better a horrible fix than

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a struct?

Also worth noting that any padding bits are zeroed as well for aggregate and union types. Not just setting all pointer values to NULL and arithmetic types to positive or unsigned zero. Op di 2 apr. 2019 om 08:17 schreef Skip Tavakkolian : > > like this: > > #include > #include > > struct option

Re: [9fans] Don't Plan 9 C compiler initialize the rest of member of a?struct?

covered and covered1 On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 17:26, Anthony Martin wrote: > Charles Forsyth once said: > > I didn't look at the code closely enough earlier, but remembered > something > > from years ago this morning. It's a bug. It isn't platform specific. > > There is an existing fix in 9front

[9fans] Slashed zero in Lucida Grande (macOS)

I recently read "Oh, oh, zero!" by Charles Bigelow, where he mentions that Lucida Grande contains an alternative glyph for zero that is slashed: "In Lucida Grande, based on Lucida Sans, the numeral one is reworked with baseline serifs but the