[#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 ext/openssl/ossl_ans1.c (with fix)
Hi,
In message <E748A8BD-1DD2-40B4-9409-3CF8A3BF725E@waits.net>,
`Stephen Waits <steve@waits.net>' wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2006, at 10:32 PM, ville.mattila@stonesoft.com wrote:
> > You are correct. This seems like a right fix. We should have
> > maintenar's
> > opinion as well.
>
> Regardless, I'd just like to throw in that initialization is never a
> bad idea.
Yes. I think flag should be initialized, but more checks are
unnecessary for now.
The ASN.1 data which has CONSTRUCTIVE bit and BIT_STRING tag
is abnormal. It causes abnormal output naturally :-)
% ruby -e '
require "openssl"
buf = String.new("\0" * 12)
buf[0] = OpenSSL::ASN1::BIT_STRING
buf[1] = 10 # length
buf[2] = 5 # unused bits
p OpenSSL::ASN1.decode(buf)
buf[0] |= 0b00100000 # set CONSTRUCTIVE
p OpenSSL::ASN1.decode(buf)
'
#<OpenSSL::ASN1::BitString:0x8103968 @tag=3, @tag_class=:UNIVERSAL, @value="\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000", @tagging=nil, @unused_bits=5>
#<OpenSSL::ASN1::BitString:0x8103364 @tag=3, @tag_class=:UNIVERSAL, @value=[#<OpenSSL::ASN1::Null:0x810374c @tag=5, @tag_class=:UNIVERSAL, @value=nil, @tagging=nil>, #<OpenSSL::ASN1::ASN1Data:0x8103404 @tag=0, @tag_class=:UNIVERSAL, @value="">, #<OpenSSL::ASN1::ASN1Data:0x81033dc @tag=0, @tag_class=:UNIVERSAL, @value="">, #<OpenSSL::ASN1::ASN1Data:0x81033a0 @tag=0, @tag_class=:UNIVERSAL, @value="">, #<OpenSSL::ASN1::ASN1Data:0x8103378 @tag=0, @tag_class=:UNIVERSAL, @value="">], @tagging=nil, @unused_bits=135281120>
--
gotoyuzo