Pike-devel

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

3041 discussions

Fail to build Module modref
by Kaos 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

Hi, Anyone has any idea why I get this error? kaos@jenna Lua $ pike -x module module_modref make PIKE_INCLUDES=-I/usr/include/pike PIKE_SRC_DIR=/usr/include/pike BUILD_BASE=/usr/include/pike MODULE_BASE=/usr/include/pike TMP_BINDIR=/usr/include/pike SRCDIR=. FULL_SRCDIR=/home/kaos/dev/pike/Lua/ TMP_MODULE_BASE=. PIKE_EXTERNAL_MODULE=pike_external_module CORE_AUTODOC_PATH=/usr/lib/doc/src/core_autodoc.xml SYSTEM_DOC_PATH=/usr/lib/doc/ SYSTEM_MODULE_PATH=/usr/lib/pike/modules LOCAL_MODULE_PATH=$$HOME/lib/pike/modules RUNPIKE=pike module_modref make[1]: Entering directory `/home/kaos/dev/pike/Lua' if test ! -d "./plib/modules" ; then \ mkdir -p ./plib/modules ; \ fi; if test "xlua.o" != "x" ; then \ /usr/include/pike/install_module module.so ./plib/modules/Public.pmod/Lang.pmod/___Lua.so ;\ fi; \ if test "xmodule.pmod.in" != "x"; then \ /usr/include/pike/install_module module.pmod ./plib/modules/Public.pmod/Lang.pmod/Lua.pmod ;\ fi make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/kaos/dev/pike/Lua' pike -x extract_autodoc --builddir=plib/refdoc --srcdir=plib/modules Extracting from /home/kaos/dev/pike/Lua/plib/modules/ Extracting from /home/kaos/dev/pike/Lua/plib/modules/Public.pmod/ Extracting from /home/kaos/dev/pike/Lua/plib/modules/Public.pmod/Lang.pmod/ Extracting file "/home/kaos/dev/pike/Lua/plib/modules/Public.pmod/Lang.pmod/Lua.pmod"... if test "Xlua.c" -ne "X"; then \ pike -x extract_autodoc --builddir=plib/refdoc lua.c; \ fi /bin/sh: line 1: test: Xlua.c: integer expression expected pike -x join_autodoc --quiet --post-process "plib/autodoc.xml" "plib/refdoc" make: *** No rule to make target `plib/autodoc.xml', needed by `module_modref.xml'. Stop. kaos@jenna Lua $ test "Xlua.c" -ne "X" -bash: test: Xlua.c: integer expression expected kaos@jenna Lua $ ls AUTHORS Makefile config.cache configure linker_options lua.cmod.compiled modlist_headers module.pmod.in plib CHANGES Makefile.in config.log configure.in lua.c lua.o modlist_segment module.so refdoc COPYING README config.status dependencies lua.cmod make_variables module.pmod pike_Lua.feature testsuite.in I have a lua.c file (generated from lua.cmod) in the current directory, with some Autdoc markup in it. But it seems that it's something with 'test' that gets bogus.. ? // Andreas

4 3

Autodoc
by Kaos 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

Hi, I missed two @ signs in the doc for _Charset/module.pmod.in at lines 83 and 94 for the @expr{ ... @} doc elements for the latest 7.7 cvs version during make doc. // Andreas

1 0

Image.Image
by Martin Nilsson (DivX Networks) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

Is there any reason why Pike should accept a 0*0 image objects (or n*0 or 0*n for that matter)?

7 28

Image.Image
by Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

Just change if((X = malloc(a+1)) == NULL) error(); to if(a==0) X = NULL; else if((X = malloc(a)) == NULL) error(); Done.

1 0

Re: Pike Conference 2004 query
by Johan Sundstr�m (Achtung Liebe!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 07 Aug '04

07 Aug '04

Not much, but there is still a decent chance I'll be able to afford it nevertheless. (I just thought I'd respond at all and perhaps happen to inspire others too, which seems to have worked. :-) / Johan Sundström (Achtung Liebe!) Previous text: >2004-08-06 15:59: >Subject: Re: Pike Conference 2004 query >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Well, what can we do to make you say yes? The venue martin has lined up >might have inexpensive accomodations (as in almost free from what I >understand). > >Bill > >On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Johan Sundström (Achtung Liebe!) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote: > >> Mostly costs; available time is mostly somewhat easier to arrange for. >> >> / Johan Sundström (Achtung Liebe!) >> >> Previous text: >> >2004-08-05 17:22: >> >Subject: Re: Pike Conference 2004 query >> >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >that would be sad. >> >what's keeping you? >> >travel cost? >> >time? >> > >> >greetings, martin. >> > >> > >> > / Brevbäraren >> > >> > > > > / Brevbäraren >

1 0

external module building and environment
by Bill Welliver 29 Jul '04

29 Jul '04

I was wondering if anyone knew if there was any rationale behind the behavior of pike -x module with respect to environment variables. The current behavior is for any environment variables that were in effect for the original build process to take precedent over any in the current environment. This means that it's not possible to use CPPFLAGS and the like to help configure find new libraries and headers. Obviously, that's rather inconvenient. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Maybe the behavior should be more sophisticated (ie combine them)? Any thoughts? Bill

2 1

OpenBSD and pike...
by Xavier Beaudouin 26 Jul '04

26 Jul '04

Hello, According to http://pike.ida.liu.se/generated/pikefarm/7.7/97_28/verifylog.txt We have : Doing tests in modules/files/testsuite (94 tests) 0: ++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++ 50: ++++++++++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++ +++--+++++ Available fds: 1024 Forking... ok. Doing simple tests. Testing dup & assign. / Testing accept. -\|/-\| Testing uni-directional shutdown on socket Testing uni-directional shutdown on pipe Testing 12 sockets. /-\| Testing 16 sockets. /-\| Testing 20 sockets. /-\|/- Testing 24 sockets. \|/-\| Testing 28 sockets. /-\|/-\| Testing 32 sockets. /-\|/-\| Testing 36 sockets. /-\|/-\|/- Testing 40 sockets. \|/-\|/-\| Testing 44 sockets. /-\|/-\|/-\| Testing 48 sockets. /-\Accept returned 0, errno: 9 64 open fds: 0 - 63 [WATCHDOG] Pike testsuite timeout, sending SIGABRT. Abort (core dumped) *** Error code 134 Gdb says (http://pike.ida.liu.se/generated/pikefarm/7.7/97_28/core.txt) : Core was generated by `pike'. Program terminated with signal 6, Abort trap. #0 0x12793dd in poll () Active threads Backtrace #0 0x12793dd in poll () #1 0x7ddfda0 in _thread_kern_poll () #2 0x7ddf746 in _thread_kern_sched () #3 0x7ddf971 in _thread_kern_sched_state () #4 0x7dd9d73 in poll () #5 0x1c112353 in handle_timeouts (ignored=0x0) at /usr/home/kiwi/xenoclient/pike-7.7/obsd.home.oav.net/buildtmp/Pike- v7.7-snapshot/src/modules/HTTPLoop/timeout.c:192 #6 0x7dd703d in _thread_start () #7 0x1f in ?? () Cannot access memory at address 0xffffffff. This bug is here for ages... for both pike 7.6 and 7.7 (I don't have pike 7.4 on xenofarm even my box is sending data... so I cannot compare... do xenofarm does some "blacklisting ????").. Can I help to fix that ? /Xavier -- Xavier Beaudouin - Unix System Administrator & Projects Leader. President of Kazar Organization : http://www.kazar.net/ Please visit http://caudium.net/, home of Caudium & Camas projects

5 7

Re: Access control
by Marcus Agehall (nu med semester) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

Hmm, did I missread you or did you get me wrong? Anyway, private will not allow anyone to inherit and extend, it will allow someone to reimplement. Ie, if you have class Foo { private void a(); } class Bar { inherit Foo; void a(); } then Foo.a is not visible from Bar at all. Only Bar.a is accessible. / Marcus Agehall (nu med semester) Previous text: >2004-07-23 07:37: >Subject: Re: Access control >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Marcus Agehall (nu med semester) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote: > >>Come to think of it, private might be right anyway. Of course one may >>subclass and override, but that is only because the private methods >>and classes does not exists (well, they aren't visible anyway) in the >>subclass. If the intention is to create a class that should only be >>accessible from your code and never used by subclasses, I would go for >>private. >> >> >> >Yes, private doesn't sound so bad. What I want is to prevent other code >outside of the module >to instantiate new objects from the class, but of course, it won't hurt >if another module is able to >extend the class by inheriting it, and then do what ever it's up to do. >It's to different use cases, whereas the first would prohibit a "end >user" from abusing the class >(should only get already created objects to work with, not create his >own ones) and the second >is for a class to be able to extend the functionality and present a new >object for the end user to use. > >It's all a matter of defining and make the design apparent how to (and >not to) use the module. >It'll be put on modules.gotpike.org as soon as I have it working with >monger, so feel free to have >a look and come back with feedback :o) > > >>Anyway, the modifiers in pike are somewhat confusing if you try to >>apply knowledge from some other language to them... >> >> >> >Indeed, I use to have the documentation for access control open to have >a quick glance when I >get confused. > >Thanks, >Andreas > > > > / Brevbäraren >

1 0

Re: Access control
by Marcus Agehall (nu med semester) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 22 Jul '04

22 Jul '04

Come to think of it, private might be right anyway. Of course one may subclass and override, but that is only because the private methods and classes does not exists (well, they aren't visible anyway) in the subclass. If the intention is to create a class that should only be accessible from your code and never used by subclasses, I would go for private. Anyway, the modifiers in pike are somewhat confusing if you try to apply knowledge from some other language to them... / Marcus Agehall (nu med semester) Previous text: >2004-07-22 07:57: >Subject: Re: Access control >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Marcus Agehall (nu med semester) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote: > >>Ah, that is true. >> >> / Marcus Agehall (nu med semester) >> >>Previous text: >> >> >>>2004-07-20 16:22: >>>Subject: Access control >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>private is almost never right, since you can inherit and modify then. >>> >>>/ Martin Nilsson (DivX Networks) >>> >>> >>> > >Thanks, I'll look what I get with different attributes. > >//Andreas > > > / Brevbäraren >

1 0

Access control
by Kaos ＠ Pike developers forum 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Hi, I wonder if there's a way to hide a class so only another object/class from the same module can instatiate new objects of the program. I tried to declare the class as `static', which hides it, well enough. But given a instance of this class makes it possible to get around the lock by doing: program p = object_program( my_obj ); object new_obj = p( args ... ); Any way to prevent this? Not a big deal, really, just a thought. //Andreas

4 4

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel