Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 07:14:09 -0800 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lua Loader Failure to Include Message-ID: <28B40BDE-BBA1-49F0-9EB5-22859A9812B9@cschubert.com> In-Reply-To: <201902111305.x1BD5bWZ011358@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <201902111305.x1BD5bWZ011358@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On February 11, 2019 5:05:37 AM PST, Cy Schubert <Cy=2ESchubert@cschubert= =2Ecom> wrote: >Hi, > >Under the old Forth loader the line: > > include /boot/testbed/test_sys > >would load the file and execute loader commands=2E > >However the the Lua loader results in the following: > >OK include /boot/testbed/amd64-current-r >no error message >OK > >Looking at the code, interp_include() expects to run actual Lua code=20 >using luaL_dofile()=2E Is this an intended change? > >The loader statements the file above is intending to execute are: > >echo >echo=20 >echo testbed/amd64-current-r (12=2E0-CURRENT) loader file selected >set bootdev=3Ddisk1s4a: >include /boot/testbed/current=2Ehints >include /boot/testbed/do_load_KOMQUATS > >Let me know if I am to rewrite these loader statements into Lua or=20 >whether the Lua loader should be taught to read loader statements=20 >instead=2E Thinking about this while travelling to $JOB, it's probably best to leave = it as is=2E I'll rewrite the includes into Lua=2E The benefit is greater fl= exibility and functionality=2E --=20 Pardon the typos and autocorrect, small keyboard in use=2E Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy=2ESchubert@cschubert=2Ecom> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD=2Eorg> Web: http://www=2EFreeBSD=2Eorg The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few=2E
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?28B40BDE-BBA1-49F0-9EB5-22859A9812B9>