[#100309] How to use backport custom field — Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
Please allow my ignorance.
9 messages
2020/10/06
[#100310] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/06
"Backport custom field" is only available for tickets whose tracker is "Bug".
[#100311] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/06
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 4:44 PM NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
[#100314] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/06
Thank you for confirmation.
[#100322] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/07
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 7:25 PM NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
[#100326] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/07
I added you to "Reporter" role in the project
[#100327] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/07
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:42 PM NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
[#100358] [BUG] ruby 2.6.6 warning with encdb.so — shiftag <shiftag@...>
Hello,
1 message
2020/10/10
[ruby-core:100625] [Ruby master Feature#17288] Optimize __send__ call with a literal method name
From:
shevegen@...
Date:
2020-10-28 20:59:34 UTC
List:
ruby-core #100625
Issue #17288 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).
Just a few things:
We need to also remember **.instance_variable_get()** and **.instance_variable_set()**.
Ruby does not quite use a similar "restriction-style" OOP like, say, java. It will
depend a lot on the style and preferences of the ruby user. Personally I much prefer
the .send() approach, so zverok's comment about what to do with private stuff, I
say .send() it all the way! Gimme all the goodies; don't restrict me. :D (I tend
to use "private" rarely, and mostly as cue for documentation, rather than as a
"I want to restrict this").
On the topic of .send(), .public_send() and .__send__(), I have a few gems that use
.send(). I like .send(). I do not use .public_send() or .__send__(), so even a new
operator for .__send__() would not affect me since I would not need it, most likely.
Last but not least, at first I thought .send() will be deprecated, e. g. I misread
this change here by nobu:
https://git.ruby-lang.org/ruby.git/commit/?id=3198e7abd70bd2af977f2bb6c967e9df8f91adb0
Perhaps this one is also related to the issue here? I think some ruby users may
wonder what to use, e. g. .send() or .public_send() or .__send__(). This should also
be kept in mind. Note that I have no strong opinion on the issue here at all, my
only concern would be whether .send() would be changed, but I think I misread that
when I first saw the git-change.
----------------------------------------
Feature #17288: Optimize __send__ call with a literal method name
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17288#change-88258
* Author: mrkn (Kenta Murata)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
----------------------------------------
I made a patch to optimize a `__send__` call with a literal method name. This optimization replaces a `__send__` method call with a `send` instruction. The patch is available in [this pull-request](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/3707).
By this change, the redefined `__send__` method is no longer called when it is called by a literal method name. I guess it is no problem because the following warning message is displayed for a long time.
$ ruby -e 'def __send__; end'
-e:1: warning: redefining `__send__' may cause serious problems
This change makes the optimized case x5~x6 faster. The benchmark result is below:
```
$ make benchmark COMPARE_RUBY="../../ruby/build-o3/ruby" ITEM=vm_send.yml
(snip)
# Iteration per second (i/s)
| |compare-ruby|built-ruby|
|:------------|-----------:|---------:|
|vm_send | 18.536M| 113.778M|
| | -| 6.14x|
|vm_send_var | 18.085M| 16.595M|
| | 1.09x| -|
```
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>