[#8484] strptime fails to properly parse certain inputs — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #5263, was opened at 2006-08-01 23:14

13 messages 2006/08/02
[#8485] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-5263 ] strptime fails to properly parse certain inputs — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/08/02

Hi,

[#8538] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-5263 ] strptime fails to properly parse certain inputs — nobu@... 2006/08/06

Hi,

[#8561] sandbox timers & block scopes — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

Two puzzles I am trying to solve:

28 messages 2006/08/08
[#8624] Re: sandbox timers & block scopes — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...> 2006/08/15

raise ThisDecayingInquisition, "anyone? anyone at all?"

[#8627] Re: sandbox timers & block scopes — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2006/08/15

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 00:35 +0900, why the lucky stiff wrote:

[#8628] Re: sandbox timers & block scopes — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...> 2006/08/15

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:

[#8629] Re: sandbox timers & block scopes — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/08/15

On 8/15/06, why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:

[#8690] a ruby-core primer — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

Hello, all. I've been working on the ruby-core page for the new Ruby site.

21 messages 2006/08/22

Re: Building with -Wall => questions

From: "Daniel Berger" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2006-08-21 16:51:00 UTC
List: ruby-core #8669
Hugh Sasse wrote:
> Having built the 1.8.5-preview4 ruby on Solaris9, I wondered if
> there was anything I could contribute before the final release.
> I've been reading Code Quality by Spinellis
> http://www.spinellis.gr/codequality/
> and saw the remarks about turning warnings on to find more edge cases.

<snip>

> And finally, should I just shut up?  Well, it probably needs asking:
> now may well be the wrong time to mention such things so close to
> 1.8.5; there may be good reasons why macros are preferred over
> functions for some platforms.  I can probably create some patches for
> many of these cases but if now is not the time, then I'll leave it 
> until later.
> 
>         Thank you,
>         Hugh
> 

I doubt you'll get anywhere with this.  I've already tried. :)

It doesn't help that gcc's warnings seem to be even more pedantic in 4.x (IMHO) 
and, in some cases, are just plain wrong (I don't have the example present but 
I've hit some weird ones).  I've found the default Sun Studio compiler warnings 
to be fairly reasonable, however.

Maybe a "recommended gcc flags" would be in order, e.g. -fno-strict-aliasing, etc.

Regards,

Dan

PS - Please, do not take this as some sort of anti-gcc rant. It's not.


This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication 
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy 
all copies of the communication and any attachments.


In This Thread