[#8136] Confused exception handling in Continuation Context — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi all

13 messages 2006/07/06

[#8248] One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...>

I just posted this to ruby-talk. But I would also like to discuss this

33 messages 2006/07/18
[#8264] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

From my experience using both tool chains on Windows (for the ruby-prof

[#8266] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...> 2006/07/19

Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8267] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

> Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8271] my sandboxing extension!! — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

I have (what feels like) very exciting news. I finally sat down to code up my

17 messages 2006/07/19

[#8430] Re: doc patch: weakref. — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>

> -----Original Message-----

19 messages 2006/07/28
[#8434] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/29

Hi,

[#8436] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2006/07/29

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#8437] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/07/29

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:37:24PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:

[#8441] Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...>

I have the following code:

18 messages 2006/07/30
[#8442] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — nobu@... 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8443] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/30

Why does this:

[#8445] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8454] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/31

So to clarify...

Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials

From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2006-07-19 20:42:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #8297
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 03:02:19AM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
> On FreeBSD uid_t and gid_t are unsigned integers.  Searching google  
                                 ^^^^^^^^
Surely this is a typo? pid_t must be signed:

  http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/sys/types.h.html

  "blksize_t, pid_t, and ssize_t shall be signed integer types."

> for 'negative uid' reveals that other operating systems also allow  
> negative uids.

Other __UNIX__ operating systems? Are you sure?

Among other things, this would make the kill(2) system call not work:

  http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/kill.html

Process IDs are positive. It is true that the pid_t type must allow
negative values, but not when a pid_t describes a process ID.

Btw, presence of -45 in /etc/passwd doesn't mean that a running process
will ever actually have negative pid. I'll believe that when I see
the a ps listing showing it.

Sam


In This Thread