From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200406111505.i5BF5xo17364@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] any success with current plan9port on sunos5.8?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:51:30 -0400."
	<200406111351.i5BDpUU20806@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca> 
References: <200406111351.i5BDpUU20806@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca> 
From: Axel Belinfante <Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:05:58 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9baffb2e-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Well, I had to comment out some stuff that doesn't work and rename a
> few symbols, but in large part it works.  I believe Bengt already
> described most of these problems.  I'm typing this in acme right now.

Cool. Looked back at Bengt's message, and reread the (p9)yield fix,
which I remembered applying.
Then found that my libthread/fdwait.c starts (started, by now)
with a #define NONOPLAN9DEFINES such that my pollidle would call
sunos' yield() instead of libthreads (renamed via the #define) p9yield() :-(
(why I did add the NONOPLAN9DEFINES there I don't recall)

Suffices to say that after some recompilations acme now works,
and I'm pretty confident that after recompiling
(after removing all the debug prints I introduced)
the whole port will benefit from the increased stack sizes.

Thanks _a_lot_ for the replies to my initial post in this thread,
which gave me enough inspiration to put in enough perspiration...

Axel - feeling foolish, but happy it works now