[#7653] parse.y: literal strings for tokens — Robin Stocker <robin@...>
Hi,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#7674] Re: [PATCH] parse.y: literal strings for tokens — ville.mattila@...
ville.mattila@stonesoft.com wrote:
Hi again,
Hi,
[#7692] Socket Documentation commit ? — zdennis <zdennis@...>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[#7708] Bug in libsnmp-ruby1.8 — Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@...>
Hi,
On Apr 11, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On 2006-04-12 02:04:32 +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
[#7721] Ruby mentor in Googe's Summer of Code — "Evan Phoenix" <evan@...>
We missed out on it last year, so lets this year try to get ruby
[#7725] readpartial not working on ARM — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
[#7727] Stack trace doesn't include class — noreply@...
Bugs item #4151, was opened at 2006-04-17 23:10
On Apr 17, 2006, at 1:11 PM, noreply@rubyforge.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
Hi --
[#7729] xmlrpc and charset=utf-8 — "Phil Tomson" <rubyfan@...>
I'm needed to interact with an XMLRPC server written using the
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:00:19 +0900
I first sent this from the wrong email account, so if that post somehow makes
On 6/19/06, Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:
[#7738] RDoc patches for GetoptLong — mathew <meta@...>
I added RDoc documentation to GetoptLong. The patches are attached. As
[#7744] Coverity Scan — "Pat Eyler" <rubypate@...>
I don't know if anyone else has signed up for access to the coverity
[#7765] possible defect in array.c — "Pat Eyler" <rubypate@...>
This one may be a false positive, I'm not sure. If it is, I'll happily mark
On 4/25/06, Pat Eyler <rubypate@gmail.com> wrote:
[#7770] Re: possible defect in array.c — "Brown, Warren" <warrenbrown@...>
> rb_range_beg_len (in range.c) does set beg and len.
On 4/26/06, Brown, Warren <warrenbrown@aquire.com> wrote:
On 4/26/06, Pat Eyler <rubypate@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/26/06, Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:15:24AM +0900, Pat Eyler wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:41:00AM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
[#7799] Patch: code-cleanup (k&r style) — Stefan Huehner <stefan@...>
Hi,
Hi,
Re: possible defect in array.c
On 4/25/06, Pat Eyler <rubypate@gmail.com> wrote: > This one may be a false positive, I'm not sure. If it is, I'll happily mark > it that way at the coverity site. This one looks like a false positive to me. Up to the switch on line 2114, [beg] is never touched. In each of the three delineated cases for the switch, [beg] is set. (In case 2, if [rb_range_beg_len succeeds], I *assume* [beg] is set by the function; if it fails, we fall through to case 3 which does set [beg].) The only way [beg] could be unset at line 2133 is if [argc] were less than 1 or greater than 3. That, I hope, is gauranteed by the input to the function (along with the hack on line 2109 for blocks). Jacob Fugal