From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <445223A5.80301@anvil.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:16:05 +0100
From: Dave Lukes <davel@anvil.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060420)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: OT: Re: [9fans] too good to pass up (SRB Comments)
References: <790d46fb49d0b5be9d9300797ec1e698@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <790d46fb49d0b5be9d9300797ec1e698@coraid.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 49ff355c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

The story from the horse's mouth was that the PWB shell already used the
sigsegv trick
because they were concerned about (groan) speed,
so before they'd use Bourne's shell they insisted that it use the same hack.

Of course, the PWB people didn't care:
after all it was "portable" in the Humpty-Dumpty sense: it worked on
Vaxes & PDP/11s.

I wonder how many different people had to rewrite that code for the M68K?:-)
(luckily someone had already done it before I got there:-)

    DaveL

Brantley Coile wrote:
> That was really John Mashy's fault, as I understand it.  He suggested
> it to SRB.  I had to deal with it when I ported V7 to the 68K.  Too
> bad every processor wasn't as clean in this reguard as the PDP-11.
>
> For those who might not have heard of this, SRB caught segfault
> signals, allocated more memory and just returned.  The instruction
> that caused the segfault would restart.  It was an automatic memory
> allocator.  Problem was that not all processors could pull off this
> sort of stunt.
>
> Geoff cleaned this up years ago.
>
>
>> not even his allocator?
>>
>> - erik
>>
>> On Fri Apr 28 08:02:29 CDT 2006, brantley@coraid.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Not that I'm defending writing C as
>>>> though it were Algol 68...
>>>>
>>> I kind of liked it after the initial shock.
>>> Even inspired the Obfuscated C Contest.
>>> I don't think SRB's code was obfuscated, though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>