From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:48:20 +0000
From: Bengt Kleberg <bengt.kleberg@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <cam46k$hfh$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <cajs41$g7a$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>,
	<200406141130.i5EBUoJ13665@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
Subject: Re: [9fans] any success with current plan9port on sunos5.8?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a2bbe04a-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Axel Belinfante wrote:
...deleted
> Just to make sure you do not have the same problem as I had:
> check which *yield* symbols are present in your non-working binary,

i have both p9yield and yield present.


...deleted
> Fix it by recompiling fdwait.c such that the yield() call
> in that file gets #define'ed to p9yield, so there is no
> reference any more to the sunos system library yield routine.

will do.


...deleted
>>int	p9yield(void);
>>#ifndef NOPLAN9DEFINES
>>#define       yield   p9yield
>>#endif
>>
> 
> 
> Looking at it now, I guess a different (better?!?) solution might be
> to simply remove the #ifndef NOPLAN9DEFINES and #endif lines from
> around above #define in thread.h .

imho the idea of NOPLAN9DEFINES is to make sure that only the original 
operating systems definitions are present. it would be very confusing to 
  get yield() replaced with p9yield() after having defined NOPLAN9DEFINES.

your first idea is better. however, i do not think it is perfect. 
instead, i wonder why fdwait.c had NOPLAN9DEFINE. if it was neccessary 
surely something else is now broken when it was removed. and if it was 
not neccessary, why was it there?


bengt