Hi, Arthur and Taco
On 5/22/08, Arthur Reutenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No; instead of (uname(uts)) it should be (uname(uts) 0) .
Well, no: if the function fails on Linux and returns, say, 1, this
test wouldn't catch it. But Taco knows what to do, and the discussion
is getting even
Hi,
Yue Wang wrote:
I think it is better to only return a table while calling the Lua
function. The table contains key=value pairs for
{sysname=,nodename=,release=, version=,machine=}. For Windows, you
just fill these names by hand instead(easy, isn't it?).
Easy to say, sure. You are not
Yue Wang wrote:
Hi, Arthur and Taco
On 5/22/08, Arthur Reutenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No; instead of (uname(uts)) it should be (uname(uts) 0) .
Well, no: if the function fails on Linux and returns, say, 1, this
test wouldn't catch it. But Taco knows what to do, and the discussion
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Taco Hoekwater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Yue Wang wrote:
I think it is better to only return a table while calling the Lua
function. The table contains key=value pairs for
{sysname=,nodename=,release=, version=,machine=}. For Windows, you
just fill
luigi scarso wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Taco Hoekwater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Yue Wang wrote:
I think it is better to only return a table while calling the Lua
function. The table contains key=value pairs for
{sysname=,nodename=,release=, version=,machine=}. For Windows,
hmm, we must what david says about that, see
http://granthinam.blogspot.com/search/label/Conference report
Kastrup, one of the developers of LuaTeX,
funny, the luatex team is 3*h (hoekwater, henkel hagen) ... small is
beautiful (efficient and effective) -)
yes, but
3hk
is one thousand 3h..
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
In a discussion with Yue Wang he convinced me that it would
be better to use uname() for finding os.name instead of the
current jungle of #ifdefs.
Because I do not want to alter the lua return values, that
means I will have to interpret
Hi all,
This is a little offtopic (it deals with luatex only) but as
Mojca said: there are many more luatex-using people here than
on dev-luatex.
In a discussion with Yue Wang he convinced me that it would
be better to use uname() for finding os.name instead of the
current jungle of #ifdefs.
On May 21, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Because I do not want to alter the lua return values, that
means I will have to interpret the contents of the returned
structure a bit. To do that, I would appreciate it if the people
on a non-linux32intel platform would compile and run the
on i386-darwin, the file doesn't compile (I saved the file as mini):
ld: warning in mini, file is not of required architecture
Undefined symbols:
_main, referenced from:
start in crt1.10.5.o
ld: symbol(s) not found
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Are you sure you copy the
On May 21, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Yue Wang wrote:
Are you sure you copy the right source code? Here is the result on Mac
OS X intel 10.5:
$ gcc -Wall test.c -o test
epicalyx:c jjgod$ ./test
sysname: Darwin
nodename: epicalyx.local
release: 9.2.2
version: Darwin Kernel Version 9.2.2: Tue
This is a little offtopic (it deals with luatex only) but as
Mojca said: there are many more luatex-using people here than
on dev-luatex.
You could also try [EMAIL PROTECTED], the list of people building
binaries for TeX Live, where you can find people running all sorts of
architectures.
Hi,
You're going to love that: on Solaris compilation works fine, but
execution prints uname() failed. And indeed, the section 2 man page
for uname explains:
I am aware of that because there is some solaris users encountered the
same failure here.
It seems that we should use umask()
On Wed, May 21 2008, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Because I do not want to alter the lua return values, that
means I will have to interpret the contents of the returned
structure a bit. To do that, I would appreciate it if the people
on a non-linux32intel platform would compile and run the
attached
2008/5/21 Taco Hoekwater [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
This is a little offtopic (it deals with luatex only) but as
Mojca said: there are many more luatex-using people here than
on dev-luatex.
sysname: FreeBSD
nodename: genipizza.casadep.home
release: 8.0-CURRENT
version: FreeBSD
Taco == Taco Hoekwater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
Taco Thanks in advance, Taco
Output on my x86-64 laptop
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ uname -a
Linux nitai 2.6.24-zen5-20080404 #6 SMP PREEMPT Fri Apr 4 13:18:03 CEST
2008 x86_64 AMD Turion(tm) 64 Mobile ML-34 AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
gives:
sysname:
Le mercredi 21 mai 2008 à 22:09 +0200, Gour a écrit :
Taco == Taco Hoekwater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
'lo,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Documents/Tata$ uname -a
Linux home 2.6.24-17-generic #1 SMP Thu May 1 14:31:33 UTC 2008 i686
GNU/Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Documents/Tata$
RAS
mh
2008/5/21 Arthur Reutenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(In that case, it returned 1). Looks like you have to check for errno ...
No; instead of (uname(uts)) it should be (uname(uts) 0) .
Best
Martin
___
If your
No; instead of (uname(uts)) it should be (uname(uts) 0) .
Well, no: if the function fails on Linux and returns, say, 1, this
test wouldn't catch it. But Taco knows what to do, and the discussion
is getting even more off-topic :-)
Arthur
2008/5/22 Arthur Reutenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No; instead of (uname(uts)) it should be (uname(uts) 0) .
Well, no: if the function fails on Linux and returns, say, 1, this
test wouldn't catch it. But Taco knows what to do, and the discussion
From uname(2) on Linux:
RETURN VALUE
On
And SUS3 has this:
Upon successful completion, a non-negative value shall be
returned. Otherwise, -1 shall be returned and errno set to indicate
the error.
Ah, OK.
Arthur
___
If your question is
21 matches
Mail list logo
