Tymshare PDP-10 tapes

[Tony Aiuto]

It's a buffer overrun.   sixbit_to_ascii writes 7 bytes.  The extension was
declared as 4. Changing to 7 is required. I'm not sure if that is the only
fix yet.  I have not had time for a detailed inspection.
-  char ext[4];
+  char ext[7];




On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:57 PM Peter Coghlan via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Tony Aiuto wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 11:48 PM Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 8:07 PM Tony Aiuto via cctalk
> >> <cctalk at 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.
>