On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:14:47AM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:36:00PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > Do you understand the fix? How does lying in printheader() fix anything? > > Moving the call to getbounds() back to the original location is the "fix" > > but then it negates -vv. We shouldn't lie in printheader(). > > Fair enough, on dwhite's suggestion here's another try that splits the > increment-and-write out from getbounds() so that the bounds value can > be shown with -vv. ..snip.. > --- savecore.c.orig 2005-06-13 16:19:41.000000000 -0400 > +++ savecore.c 2005-06-15 09:41:52.000000000 -0400 ... > + writebounds(bounds+1); ^^^^^^^^ bounds + 1 I like the patch, after the style(9) fix. Might as well avoid a brucification. ;-) Who's going to commit this patch? -- -- David (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org)Received on Fri Jun 17 2005 - 06:35:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:36 UTC