[#7955] Failing tests in ruby since 1.8.2 — "Caleb Tennis" <caleb@...>
The following tests have been failing in Ruby for a long time, including
[#7978] Patch for Unix socket peer credentials — "James F. Hranicky" <jfh@...>
This patch adds support for getting the uid and gid of the peer
In article <200606091528.30171.jfh@cise.ufl.edu>,
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:51, Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <200606161327.35948.jfh@cise.ufl.edu>,
On Saturday 17 June 2006 06:27, Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <200607101352.16804.jfh@cise.ufl.edu>,
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 00:10, Tanaka Akira wrote:
Hi,
On Thursday 13 July 2006 22:48, nobu@ruby-lang.org wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:27 PM, James F. Hranicky wrote:
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 15:52, Eric Hodel wrote:
[#7994] Ruby Kaigi date confusion — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...>
I'm quite confused by the dates I have seen reported on various Ruby Kaigi
[#8013] Download page on ruby-lang has numeric URL — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
This is off-topic to ruby-core, but possibly core to ruby's uptake:
On Jun 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
[#8038] bug in $. ? — Wybo Dekker <wybo@...>
wybo>cat t
Wybo Dekker schrieb:
Pit Capitain wrote:
[#8050] Thank-you to the Rails Core Team — Dave Teare <devlists-ruby-core@...>
While we were listening to Dave Thomas' Keynote address today at
[#8061] Win32 Extension Issues Wanted! — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...>
Everyone. I had a conversation with folks from Microsoft today about
[#8065] Core documentation patches — Alex Young <alex@...>
Hi there,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#8073] 1.8.5p1 build failure on Solaris 10 — "Daniel Berger" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Solaris 10
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>>>>> "D" == Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> writes:
ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote on 28.06.2006 17:37:00:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote on 29.06.2006 20:02:11:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote on 29.06.2006 20:53:20:
ville.mattila@stonesoft.com wrote:
[#8087] optparse.rb to RDoc documentation patch — <noreply@...>
Patches item #4879, was opened at 2006-06-28 20:50
On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:50 AM, <noreply@rubyforge.org>
[#8102] Reorganizing configure.in by platform? — "Daniel Berger" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi,
Re: 1.8.5p1 build failure on Solaris 10
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote on 30.06.2006 15:21:11:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: 1.8.5p1 build failure on Solaris 10"
> on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 04:57:10 +0900, "Daniel Berger" <Daniel.
> Berger@qwest.com> writes:
> |> -solaris*2.10) ac_cv_func_isinf=yes
> |> +solaris*2.10) if test -z "$GCC"; then
> |> + ac_cv_func_isinf=yes
> |> + fi
>
> |Actually, shouldn't we test for the feature instead of the
> platform? I don't
> |remember if older versions of Solaris have this.
>
> Actually this hack is added to resolve usual test failure for isinf
> on Solaris , maybe it was due to the forte compiler, so that just
> restoring test may not work well.
This does not restore the test if gcc is not used. I tested this patch
with gcc
and the forte compiler. All tests passed OK.
>
> |So, AC_CHECK_LIB(sunmath, isinf) && AC_CHECK_HEADER(sunmath.h, isinf),
with
> |#ifdef's in the source?
>
> I have no knowledge to tell that this is appropriate or not. Any idea?
I don't like it too much, as it would require additional ifdefs to
*.[ch] files.