[#11890] Ruby and Solaris door library — "Hiro Asari" <asari.ruby@...>

Hi, there. This is my first patch against ruby. I think I followed

19 messages 2007/08/13
[#11892] Re: Ruby and Solaris door library — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/08/14

Hiro Asari wrote:

[#11899] pack/unpack 64bit Integers — Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@...>

Hi,

13 messages 2007/08/14
[#11903] Re: pack/unpack 64bit Integers — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2007/08/15

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:50:01AM +0900, Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#11948] Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — David Flanagan <david@...>

I just noticed that my ruby1.9 build of August 17th includes a Fiber

22 messages 2007/08/22
[#11949] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/08/22

David Flanagan wrote:

[#11950] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...> 2007/08/22

On 8/22/07, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:

[#11952] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/08/22

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:50:12 +0900, "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:

[#11988] String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — "Vincent Isambart" <vincent.isambart@...>

I saw that Matz just merged his M17N implementation in the trunk.

17 messages 2007/08/25
[#11991] Re: String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — "Michael Neumann" <mneumann@...> 2007/08/25

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:54:20 +0200, Yukihiro Matsumoto

[#11992] Re: String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/08/25

Hi,

[#12042] Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes? — David Flanagan <david@...>

This message contains queries that probably only Matz can answer:

16 messages 2007/08/31
[#12043] Re: Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/08/31

Hi,

Re: IO#seek and whence problem

From: Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Date: 2007-08-16 11:27:18 UTC
List: ruby-core #11913
Hi,

Am Mittwoch, 15. Aug 2007, 18:39:10 +0900 schrieb Brian Candler:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 05:38:38PM +0900, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
> > I completely turned off optimization and distcc.
> > 
> > In <io.c> I put the following debug statements:
> > 
> >   static VALUE
> >   rb_io_seek(io, offset, whence)
> >       VALUE io, offset;
> >       int whence;
> >   {
> >       OpenFile *fptr;
> >       off_t pos;
> > 
> >       fprintf( stderr, "rb_io_seek: A; whence=%d\n", pos, whence);
> 
> Two arguments, one format specifier?
> 
> >       pos = NUM2OFFT(offset);
> >       fprintf( stderr, "rb_io_seek: B; pos=%d, whence=%d\n", pos, whence);
> 
> Remember that %d consumes an 'int', and off_t may be larger than int on your
> platform.

Arrrgh! Not more than a typo.

Anyway, this lead me to the core problem. There seems to be
some kind of mismatch between HAVE_OFF_T and HAVE_FSEEKO.
When I change

  681c681
  <     off_t pos;
  ---
  >     int pos;

everything works properly.

Seems to be a real bug.

Bertram



In This Thread

Prev Next