[#444] io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — Jos Backus <jos@...>

I am encountering a problem similar to the one mentioned here,

19 messages 2002/09/06
[#453] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — nobu.nokada@... 2002/09/08

Hi,

[#454] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2002/09/09

Hi

[#469] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2002/09/09

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 03:55:13PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#479] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2002/09/10

On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:04:10AM +0900, Jos Backus wrote:

[#492] Re: io_write()/fwrite() and EINTR on Solaris — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2002/09/21

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:23:33AM +0900, Jos Backus wrote:

Re: [MemLeak] in dln.c

From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2002-09-03 16:12:08 UTC
List: ruby-core #418
Hi,

In message "Re: [MemLeak] in dln.c"
    on 02/09/03, Michal Rokos <m.rokos@sh.cvut.cz> writes:

|On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 11:04:50AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
|> Ruby uses missing/alloca.c for such platforms, however I've
|> inclined to #1, which uses alloca() in just two places.  Still
|> ASTRDUP() macro feels evil, so explicit copy may be better.
|
|	personally, I'd go for #3, than #1, and then #2.
|
|	If #3 is NO-NO, I'd take #1. If matz is not agains, I'll leave
|	implementation, and commit of #1 to you.

Since I want dln.c to be separatable, I prefer #2, #1, then #3.

							matz.

In This Thread