[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>

Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in

17 messages 2006/01/05
[#7058] Re: More on VC++ 2005 — nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...> 2006/01/06

Hi,

[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)

Hi,

22 messages 2006/01/10
[#7097] Re: mathn: ugly warnings — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...> 2006/01/10

Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#7098] Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/10

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#7118] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/12

*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:

[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>

Hello,

23 messages 2006/01/28
[#7228] Re: Question about massive API changes — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...> 2006/01/28

>

Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3317 ] trouble due ruby redefining posix function eaccess

From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2006-01-25 15:03:27 UTC
List: ruby-core #7206
On 25/01/06, nobu@ruby-lang.org <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:45:35 +0900,
> noreply@rubyforge.org wrote in [ruby-core:07195]:
> > if a program now includes unistd and ruby.h you get the following error:
> > /usr/include/unistd.h:266: error: declaration of 'int eaccess(const char*, int) throw ()' throws different exceptions
>
> Why `throw' in C?

It may be compiled with a C++ compiler and "throw" is somehow defined
to do nothing ;)

IMO, Ruby shouldn't be defining POSIX functions except on platforms
that don't support them, and probably not even then because of
possible conflicts. Look what happened with someone who tried to build
something with both Ruby and the APR recently and a definition of
pid_t instead of rb_pid_t.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca


In This Thread