[#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: Problem with setreuid under Mac OS X

From: "Vincent Isambart" <vincent.isambart@...>
Date: 2006-08-28 07:49:28 UTC
List: ruby-core #8733
Hi,

> > I think there is a little problem in the modification for setregid of
> > the 16th August: shouldn't the redefined setregid in process.c be
> > static? Because as it is, I have a warning during the linking:
> > /usr/bin/ld: warning multiple definitions of symbol _setreuid
> > libruby-1.9-static.a(process.o) definition of _setreuid in section
> > (__TEXT,__text)
> > /usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-apple-darwin8/4.0.1/../../../libpthread.dylib(setreuid.So)
>
> setreuid() in the system library is broken.
Yes, I understand that but even if ruby defines a better one, it
should not use the same name (maybe something like ruby_setreuid) to
not have any problem at linking time.
This kind of multiple definition warning is not a good thing, and if
the linker was more strict it would even be an error instead of a
warning.

> > As it is not used in any other source file, I could be static...
>
> So it is intended to replace the wrong one.
I do not see the problem in using an other name (and why not a static function).
You mean you want to replace the system one even for ruby C extensions?
In that case, you could put a "#define setreuid ruby_setreuid" in
ruby.h. I know it's not very clean, but it would still do what you
want and there would be no linking problem...

And I talk about setreuid but it's the same for setregid.

Regards,
Vincent ISAMBART

In This Thread

Prev Next