On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, David O'Brien wrote: > 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? I'll get this committed. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite_at_gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Sun Jun 19 2005 - 20:27:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:37 UTC