[#7286] Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273 — ara.t.howard@...

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Minero Aoki wrote:

23 messages 2006/02/02
[#7292] ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/02/02

[#7293] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/02/02

mathew wrote:

[#7298] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — James Britt <ruby@...> 2006/02/03

mathew wrote:

[#7310] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2006/02/07

I'm not sure we even need the 'with' syntax. Even if we do, it breaks

[#7311] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2006/02/07

On 2006.02.07 10:03, Evan Webb wrote:

[#7313] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2006/02/07

Umm, on what version are you seeing a warning there? I don't and never

[#7315] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2006/02/07

On 2006.02.07 14:47, Evan Webb wrote:

[#7316] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2006/02/07

I'd by far prefer it never emit a warning. The warning is assumes you

[#7305] Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3 — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>

On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:33:40PM +0900, Christian Neukirchen wrote:

28 messages 2006/02/05
[#7401] Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/02/22

On Feb 5, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:

[#7414] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/02/23

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:21:24PM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:

[#7428] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/26

In article <1140968746.321377.18843.nullmailer@x31.priv.netlab.jp>,

[#7444] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — nobu@... 2006/02/28

Hi,

[#7445] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/28

In article <m1FDshr-0006MNC@Knoppix>,

[#7447] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/28

In article <87irr047sx.fsf@m17n.org>,

[#7448] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/28

In article <87vev0hxu5.fsf@m17n.org>,

[#7465] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — "Evan Webb" <evanwebb@...> 2006/03/01

Just my quick 2 cents...

[#7468] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/03/01

In article <92f5f81d0602281855g27e78f4eua8bf20e0b8e47b68@mail.gmail.com>,

[#7403] Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — Emiel van de Laar <emiel@...>

Hi List,

12 messages 2006/02/22
[#7404] Re: Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — George Ogata <g_ogata@...> 2006/02/22

Emiel van de Laar <emiel@rednode.nl> writes:

[#7406] Re: Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — dblack@... 2006/02/22

Hi --

[#7442] GC Question — zdennis <zdennis@...>

I have been posting to the ruby-talk mailing list about ruby memory and GC, and I think it's ready

17 messages 2006/02/27

Re: [PATCH] solaris 10 isinf and ruby_setenv fixes

From: "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Date: 2006-02-01 07:20:47 UTC
List: ruby-core #7273
Hello.

>Yes I experienced actual memory corruption. Here is the test run:
>
>test_bracket(TestEnv): ./ruby/test_env.rb:19:in `[]=': failed to allocate
>memory (NoMemoryError)
>        from ./ruby/test_env.rb:19:in `test_bracket'
>        from /install/ruby-1-8-cvs/ruby/lib/test/unit/testcase.rb:70:in
>`run'
>        from /install/ruby-1-8-cvs/ruby/lib/test/unit/testsuite.rb:32:in
>`run'
>        from /install/ruby-1-8-cvs/ruby/lib/test/unit/testsuite.rb:31:in
>`run'

Hmm, I also think it's better to use setenv(3). But for curiousty,
Can you try this patch? Still core dumps?

Index: hash.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /src/ruby/hash.c,v
retrieving revision 1.128.2.14
diff -u -w -b -p -r1.128.2.14 hash.c
--- hash.c	19 Jul 2005 08:25:37 -0000	1.128.2.14
+++ hash.c	1 Feb 2006 06:50:26 -0000
@@ -1788,6 +1788,23 @@ envix(nam)
     return i;
 }
 
+#ifndef _WIN32
+char *
+ruby_getenv(name)
+    const char *name;
+{
+    char *p = environ[envix(name)];
+
+    if (p) {
+	p = strchr(p, '=');
+	if (p) {
+	    p += 1;
+	}
+    }
+    return p;
+}
+#endif
+
 void
 ruby_setenv(name, value)
     const char *name;
Index: util.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /src/ruby/util.h,v
retrieving revision 1.14.2.2
diff -u -w -b -p -r1.14.2.2 util.h
--- util.h	30 Oct 2005 18:20:53 -0000	1.14.2.2
+++ util.h	1 Feb 2006 06:50:42 -0000
@@ -46,11 +46,18 @@ void ruby_add_suffix();
 void ruby_qsort _((void*, const int, const int, int (*)(), void*));
 #define qsort(b,n,s,c,d) ruby_qsort(b,n,s,c,d)
 
+#ifndef _WIN32
+char *ruby_getenv _((const char*));
+#undef getenv
+#define getenv(name) ruby_getenv(name)
+#endif
+
 void ruby_setenv _((const char*, const char*));
-void ruby_unsetenv _((const char*));
 #undef setenv
-#undef unsetenv
 #define setenv(name,val) ruby_setenv(name,val)
+
+void ruby_unsetenv _((const char*));
+#undef unsetenv
 #define unsetenv(name,val) ruby_unsetenv(name);
 
 char *ruby_strdup _((const char*));


In This Thread

Prev Next