Tony Aiuto wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 11:48 PM Jim Carpenter <j...@deitygraveyard.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 8:07 PM Tony Aiuto via cctalk >> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: >> > I think that is an artifact of the files being created with the wrong >> names. >> > For example, with tape 169249, after you skip the UFDs, tito -t prints >> > >> > (SYS) .SHR 1977-01-26 22:22 [1,4] >> > (SYS) .LOW 1977-01-26 22:23 [1,4] >> > (SYS) .SHR 1986-08-19 03:53 [1,4] >> > (SYS) .LOW 1975-10-24 14:52 [1,4] >> > (SYS) .SAV 1964-01-02 00:01 [1,4] >> > (SYS) .SAV 1964-01-02 00:01 [1,4] >> > >> > All the file names are missing. That seems not right. >> >> Very not right, because this is what tito -t is giving me: >> >> (SYS) PIP .SHR 1977-01-26 22:22 [1,4] >> (SYS) PIP .LOW 1977-01-26 22:23 [1,4] >> (SYS) LOGINN.SHR 1986-08-19 03:53 [1,4] >> (SYS) COBOL .LOW 1975-10-24 14:52 [1,4] >> (SYS) BINCON.SAV 1964-01-02 00:01 [1,4] >> (SYS) VPDATA.SAV 1964-01-02 00:01 [1,4] >> >> Those are the first 6 after the UFDs, and extensions and >> date/timestamps match yours. I don't have any, at least on 169249, >> missing the first part of the file name. >> >> Jim >> > > Well. I'm stumped right now. I verified the tape checksum again, and even > got a fresh copy from http://vtda.org/bits/software/DEC/PDP-10/tymshare/. > That is not the problem. > > I'm building tito on a generic Debian linux (x86_64, debian 4.19, gcc > 8.3.0) so I doubt this is a portability problem. I'll try again next > weekend. >
Out of curiosity, I tried building tito on VMS (with DECC V7.3-009 on an Alphaserver 800). I had some errors compiling memory.c but it appears the code involved does not get called by tito so this didn't cause me any problems. I was able to list the contents of tape 169249 with the resulting executable and the output I got matched the "right" output above exactly. I didn't see anything that looked wrong elsewhere in the file listing either. Regards, Peter Coghlan.