[#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: [ ruby-Bugs-5243 ] #if should be #ifdef in ruby.h

From: "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...>
Date: 2006-07-31 10:24:32 UTC
List: ruby-core #8464
On 7/31/06, URABE Shyouhei <shyouhei@ice.uec.ac.jp> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> > Because if LONG_LONG_VALUE /isn't/ defined, it'll cause a compiler
> > warning with GCC if GCC is passed the -Wundef option.
>
> I believe ANSI C defines that an undefined macros showld be expanded to
> zero when they appear in preprocessor-parsed lines.  GCC -Wundef is
> somewhat meddlesome, and hence, is not a default option of GCC. Why do
> you want to turn that option on?

Page 232 in "The C Programming Language":

  Any identifiers remaining after macro expansion are replaced by 0L.

So yes, technically it's fine and dandy to not use
defined()/undefined() or #ifdef/#ifndef, but for purposes of
understanding the code it makes a lot more sense to use either of
these forms over simply #if.

Also, the problem is that if someone, like me, who includes ruby.h and
wants to use -Wundef for my own files can't ignore the warnings caused
by code in ruby.h.  Doesn't it make sense to make ruby.h pass as many
tests as possible so that whoever uses it doesn't have to work around
the problems it may introduce?

I turn on as many -W options as possible so that I'm sure that even
though I've tried my damndest to keep my code bug-free, the compiler
will try /it's/ damndest to make sure that that is the case.

  nikolai

In This Thread