From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b95e002fe9e82ff47c73f5dbdb02db0f@hamnavoe.com>
References: <CAJDwFdiAX8iW+7ggCB6VpguEVk2bx8d2yBA3Jeoh4N1TRYQTbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<b95e002fe9e82ff47c73f5dbdb02db0f@hamnavoe.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?= <aram.h@mgk.ro>
Date: Tue,  2 Feb 2016 13:36:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEAzY3-GuDUAKbd3FxXtO5q6xBnvAGAVif-dnbffa_bjYE1qzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] rc exec error behaviour
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 81a09b56-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

For 386, Go barely works. For amd64, current Go doesn't currently work
on 9front (but works on Charles' kernel), probably due to a kernel
bug.

Either way, Go on Plan 9 is held together with duck tape, especially
networking bits.

Btw, Go broke on 9front about a year ago (or was it more than that?).
Only one single person noticed, and that was months later after the
fact. That serves as a useful test to gauge interest (and quality) in
Go on Plan 9.

--=20
Aram H=C4=83v=C4=83rneanu