From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:36:51 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4d75b485d166e74dd91304076abc5aa1@proxima.alt.za> References: <4d75b485d166e74dd91304076abc5aa1@proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] [GSOC] plan9 which arch code to use? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e09ad780-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed May 7 07:15:46 EDT 2014, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > I should have commented further. The first patch is a copy from the > > original Nix files written by jmk. The second is an attempt to synchronize > > with the changes made in Plan 9 on September 2013. > > Based entirely on these patches, plus a little tweaking because I've > updated APE to be closer to NetBSD for sys/socket.h, lib/bsd/connect.c, > lib/bsd/getpeername.c and lib/bds/getsockname.c, I get pretty far > along, failing on: > > inittraps: undefined: sigemptyset in inittraps > > while building pdksh. > > I'm sure I can track this down, but perhaps somebody has already taken > care of this issue? I haven't yet checked Charles' posting. from my perspective, it's hard to see this patch issue. 9atom is my attempt at bringing the system together with a amd64 port. it's not perfect, but that's why i've always encouraged patches. i don't want it to be a solo effort; it should be a community project. (9atom is actually incorporated as a non profit in the US.) could explain why these patches made sense for you rather than the atom stuff? - erik