On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:50 AM, erik quanstrom<quans...@quanstro.net> wrote: >> looks like it's related to the error above. you might want to downgrade to >> http://swtch.com/plan9port/plan9port-20090609.tgz > > fortune tells me > > The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, > coupled with judiciously placed print statements. > -Kernighan, 1978 > > i don't think this bug is going to be fixed without a > bit of actual debugging. since your theories are rather > easy to test, i would think it would be much easier to > arrive at a solution via a frontal assault bwk style, rather > than sniping at it from the safety of the mailing list. > > i promise, vac won't shoot back. even if you pull out > gdb. > > i'm interested in what the actual bug is.
yes, It appears I might be wrong This warning is probably just a overly paranoid openbsd compiler vac.c:509: warning: sizeof(pointer) possibly incorrect in argument 3 and might not be related to this error create bsize 8192 psize 8160vac: vacfscreate: vacfileroot: read too small: asked for 0 need at least 389 I looked at it again and tried the vac command on a test venti and it worked with no errors. Even with the sizeof warning. I no longer have a copy of the problematic plan9port.tgz so I took a new copy from swtch.com. It was either fixed by someone else or the error was a fluke. fernan -- http://www.fernski.com
