Re: Fwd: Auto: Your message 'FAIL IO-AIO-2.51 i386-freebsd-thread-multi 6.2-release' has NOT been received

--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is particularly near to my heart as Test::More has a similiar > problem with thread tests and I'm not sure what to do about it. I've discovered that handing the problem to Andy Armstrong and batting my eyelashes works wonders. Cheers, Ovid -

Re: Auto: Your message 'FAIL IO-AIO-2.51 i386-freebsd-thread-multi 6.2-release' has NOT been received

On 19 Dec 2007, at 08:22, Ovid wrote: It is particularly near to my heart as Test::More has a similiar problem with thread tests and I'm not sure what to do about it. I've discovered that handing the problem to Andy Armstrong and batting my eyelashes works wonders. I've been had! :) -- Andy

Re: Auto: Your message 'FAIL IO-AIO-2.51 i386-freebsd-thread-multi 6.2-release' has NOT been received

* Elliot Shank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-19 08:10]: > In particular, I've been using them to test my attempts at > fixing Perl::Critic on perl 5.6, which I've never been able to > compile/pass tests on my Macs. I wish someone would help me fix Proc::Fork on Windows. I got two tickets about it a

Re: Auto: Your message 'FAIL IO-AIO-2.51 i386-freebsd-thread-multi 6.2-release' has NOT been received

Andy Armstrong wrote: > On 19 Dec 2007, at 03:13, Michael G Schwern wrote: >> Anyhow, what's clear is there is a problem with IO::AIO. It hasn't been >> addressed properly by the author. While it's frustrating to get a >> constant >> stream of "your shit is broke", his shit is indeed broke. This

Re: Auto: Your message 'FAIL IO-AIO-2.51 i386-freebsd-thread-multi 6.2-release' has NOT been received

On 19 Dec 2007, at 12:23, A. Pagaltzis wrote: I wish someone would help me fix Proc::Fork on Windows. I got two tickets about it and a bunch of Testers failures, but several attempts to make it work have failed and my repeated pleas have fallen on deaf ears. :-( I'll have a look :) Is the ver

Re: Auto: Your message 'FAIL IO-AIO-2.51 i386-freebsd-thread-multi 6.2-release' has NOT been received

* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-19 13:40]: > I'll have a look :) Whoa. I guess Ovid is right, after all! > Is the version on CPAN the one to try? Yeah. It segfaults on the “fork for real” test (in both AS and Strawberry; both 5.8). Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Auto: Your message 'FAIL IO-AIO-2.51 i386-freebsd-thread-multi 6.2-release' has NOT been received

On 19 Dec 2007, at 12:32, Michael G Schwern wrote: Obviously that's my (probably extremely unprofessional) impression of his views. He did mention religion and ego though :) CPAN Testers does mug his modules pretty badly, just look at all that red. http://cpantesters.perl.org/author/MLEHMANN

Re: Auto: Your message 'FAIL IO-AIO-2.51 i386-freebsd-thread-multi 6.2-release' has NOT been received

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:38:46PM +, Andy Armstrong wrote: > On 19 Dec 2007, at 12:32, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >>Obviously that's my (probably extremely unprofessional) impression of > >>his views. He did mention religion and ego though :) > > > >CPAN Testers does mug his modules pretty bad

Proc::Fork on Windows

On Dec 19, 2007 7:23 AM, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wish someone would help me fix Proc::Fork on Windows. I got > two tickets about it and a bunch of Testers failures, but several > attempts to make it work have failed and my repeated pleas have > fallen on deaf ears. :-) I poked

Re: Proc::Fork on Windows

Hi David, thanks for taking a gander! * David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-19 16:35]: > As I've reported elsewhere, Perl on windows has what I call the > "taint-fork bug" -- forking while under taint just segfaults. Ugh. > With a little more poking around, the problem lies in your > modi

Re: Proc::Fork on Windows

On Dec 19, 2007 11:03 AM, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does it continue to pass if you replace the first line with > > my ( $p, $c, $e, $r ) = @{ $config }{ qw( parent child error retry ) }; > > and then inline the body of `_do_fork`? > > (Logically, it should, but this utterly und

Re: Proc::Fork on Windows

On 19 Dec 2007, at 16:25, David Golden wrote: (Logically, it should, but this utterly undebuggable problem has made me a bit superstitious…) It looks like it does (as long as you remove the "-T" from the shebang in 01.real.t. This is good - I can stop messing around trying to make a debug bu