[#4065] Surprise in Time#sec — Steven Jenkins <steven.jenkins@...>
This bit me:
[#4067] Segfault in Thread#initialize / caller — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin!
[#4076] Ruby/DL — Jamis Buck <jamis_buck@...>
I recently used Ruby/DL to create bindings to the SQLite3 embedded
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 02:53:49AM +0900, Jamis Buck wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:05:48AM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:10:34AM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:57:57PM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:06:16AM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
ts wrote:
[#4116] Test::Unit::Collector::Dir won't work with code that modifies $LOAD_PATH — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Any test code that depends upon modifications of $: fails when used
Hi,
On 11 Jan 2005, at 04:14, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005, at 09:39, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:06:10 +0900, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:48:58 -0500, Nathaniel Talbott
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:17:14 -0500, Nathaniel Talbott
[#4146] The face of Unicode support in the future — Charles O Nutter <headius@...>
Hello Rubyists!
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:53:48PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:35PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
[#4189] Authenticated proxy support for open-uri — Neil Kohl <nakohl@...>
Hello!
[#4232] Carriage return on shebang — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin.
[#4242] tracer.rb: Do not list pseudo source lines of binary extensions — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin.
[#4243] Patch that enables https in open-uri.rb — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...>
Hi,
In article <41E93F42.9090705@ntecs.de>,
Tanaka Akira wrote:
[#4269] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Wes Nakamura <wknaka@...>
Hi,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
[#4296] parse_c.rb: allow whitespace after function names — Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@...>
Hi,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> [2005-01-21 17:43]:
[#4311] RFE: Enumerable#group_by, Array#^ — Florian Gro<florgro@...>
Moin.
[#4323] test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception in a test method, as follows.
In article <87is5jb46q.fsf@serein.a02.aist.go.jp>,
On 9/1/06, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
On Sep 2, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
In article <A604C0B3-95ED-4B9B-866C-79A2C7D5E3C4@segment7.net>,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 9:39 PM, Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <622DAC7E-55DB-4854-B82B-A037CE9C75EF@segment7.net>,
In article <87ac5hv4bo.fsf@fsij.org>,
On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Tanaka Akira wrote:
[#4332] IO#clearerr missing in action — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
I wanted to implement tail(1) in ruby cleanly, but found the best I
[#4335] When will Object#type disappear? — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi --
Re: Ruby/DL
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Florian Growrote: > Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > > 2. Are there any OS'es that block execution of data-segments? IIRC, the > > i386-family supports such permission flags, but I don't know which OS'es > > use it for real. (Linux doesn't...) > > Isn't N^X all about that? What's this N^X thing? is that the hot new way to say UNIX? Or is it the way to say *NIX as an obscure echo to AT&T/Lucent litigations, all the while trying not to sound like an old fart? Anyway "N^X" to me looks like nothing at all, and I'd label it plain skriptkiddie-talk if it weren't generally an insult. I don't even want to know where the "^" comes from. Anyway, what do you mean by "all about"... UNIX brought a whole slew of things over 35 years... it's not like any feature of UNIX really defines UNIX; and not even many features are typical of UNIX, especially as most other OS'es have implemented them since. Besides, permission bits on segments aren't a defining feature of any OS, it's just a feature of some CPU's, that the OS may give an interface to or not. What I meant by "Linux doesn't" is that data segments are executable by default. I wanted to know which OS'es default to non-executable, and which of those OS'es don't allow executable segments at all. > It seems to be quite a hot thing for protecting against stack > overflows right now. hmmm?... i guess you mean protecting about unchecked overflow of buffers that are stack-allocated ?... sounds like a useful trick, though I'm not well-versed enough in security to know whether that's practically useful, or just another paranoid compulsion. Else, if i read you literally, then no, it doesn't do anything about stack-overflows, nor does it help. _____________________________________________________________________ Mathieu Bouchard -=- Montr饌l QC Canada -=- http://artengine.ca/matju