From: clemc@ccc.com (Clem cole)
Subject: [TUHS] why is sum reporting different checksum's between v6 and v7
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 19:10:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44F5C6AC-AAD2-45F3-AD53-E510E3744F16@ccc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <566B6467.5060703@gmail.com>
A thought. Try recompiling v7 sum on v6. It's simple enough that the compiler differences should be easy to tease out.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 11, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Will Senn <will.senn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> While working on the latest episode of my saga about moving files between v6 and v7, I noticed that the sum utility from v6 reports a different checksum than it does using the sum utility from v7 for the same file. To confirm, I did the following on both systems:
>
> # echo "Hello, World" > hi.txt
> # cat hi.txt
> Hello, World
>
> Then on v6:
> # sum hi.txt
> 1106 1
>
> But on v7:
> # sum hi.txt
> 37264 1
>
> There is no man page for the utility on v6, and it's assembler. On v7, there's a manpage and it's C:
> man sum
> ...
> Sum calculates and prints a 16-bit checksum for the named
> file, and also prints the number of blocks in the file.
> ...
>
> A few questions:
> 1. I'll eventually be able to read assembly and learn what the v6 utility is doing the hard way, but does anyone know what's going on here?
> 2. Why is sum reporting different checksum's between v6 and v7?
> 3. Do you know of an alternative to check that the bytes were transferred exactly? I used od and then compared the text representation of the bytes on the host using diff (other than differences in output between v6 and v7 related to duplicate lines, it worked ok but is clunky).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Will
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-12 0:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-12 0:03 Will Senn
2015-12-12 0:10 ` Clem cole [this message]
2015-12-12 0:38 ` Random832
2015-12-12 0:30 Noel Chiappa
2015-12-12 1:07 ` Random832
2015-12-12 1:22 Noel Chiappa
2015-12-12 1:46 ` Random832
2015-12-12 1:50 ` John Cowan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=44F5C6AC-AAD2-45F3-AD53-E510E3744F16@ccc.com \
--to=clemc@ccc.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).