sorry for the noise; the -s was mentioned in your original post and i
missed it. now hell-o example works. i'll try out a few more things.
i checked out a complete release (fresh copy) earlier today before
applying the patch; it had the same results (one patch failed to
apply).
$ hg identify
51c777dbccb9+ tip
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Pavel Zholkover <paulz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The patch is against mainline tip, it also applies cleanly against
> release.2010-12-22 (and probably a few earlier ones).
> What version/release are you patching ?
>
> Did you link with -s (stripped symbols) when compiling on linux ?
>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Skip Tavakkolian
> <skip.tavakkol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> my hg-fu isn't very good; i'm not sure if this is the right way of
>> applying the patch. using patch, one operation fails (it looks like
>> the copy isn't done)
>>
>> f...@hpamd:~/go$ patch -p1 < ../issue3816043_9001.diff
>> patching file src/pkg/os/Makefile
>> patching file src/pkg/os/dir_plan9.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/env_plan9.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/error.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/error_plan9.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/error_posix.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/exec.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/exec.go
>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 146.
>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/pkg/os/exec.go.rej
>> patching file src/pkg/os/file.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/file_plan9.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/file_posix.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/proc.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/stat_plan9.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/sys_plan9.go
>> patching file src/pkg/os/time.go
>> patching file src/pkg/runtime/plan9/386/rt0.s
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/Makefile
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/asm_plan9_386.s
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/mkall.sh
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/mksyscall_plan9.awk
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/mksyscall_plan9.sh
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/mksysnum_plan9.sh
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/syscall.go
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/syscall_plan9.go
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/syscall_plan9_386.go
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/syscall_unix.go
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/types_plan9.c
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/zerrors_plan9_386.go
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/zsyscall_plan9_386.go
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/zsysnum_plan9_386.go
>> patching file src/pkg/syscall/ztypes_plan9_386.go
>>
>> at any rate building on linux targeting plan9 and 386 arch (some tests
>> fail), i can generate an output. running it on plan9 causes a
>> protection violation:
>>
>> cpue% pwd
>> /mnt/term/home/fst/test
>> cpue% cat hell-o.go
>> package main
>>
>> func main() {
>> println("Hello, 世界")
>> }
>> cpue% ./8.hell-o
>> 8.hell-o 19698: suicide: sys: trap: general protection violation
>> pc=0x00007047
>>
>> -Skip
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Pavel Zholkover <paulz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I've pushed syscall and os package support for Plan 9 on x86 at
>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3816043/ (pending a review).
>>> I had to make changes to the core go files, so keep your fingers
>>> crossed I didn't break anything along the way and get committed.
>>>
>>> If you have access to a real Plan 9 machine or inside qemu) please
>>> test (9vx does not seem to work, confirmed by Andrey Mirtchovski for
>>> early versions of code).
>>>
>>> (Reminder: -s needs to be passed to 8l, otherwise the binaries fail to run).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pavel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
