[#1207] warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...>
This message was posted to ruby-talk, but I didn't get responce from
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
ts wrote:
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
ts wrote:
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
ts wrote:
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
ts wrote:
>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:
Hi,
[#1229] stack problem — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:59:53PM +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 01:26:43AM +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Hi,
[#1237] FTP.new with block — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Hi,
>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:
Hi,
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:06:13AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
>>>>> "R" == Richard Zidlicky <rz@linux-m68k.org> writes:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 06:51:03PM +0900, ts wrote:
>>>>> "R" == Richard Zidlicky <rz@linux-m68k.org> writes:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:59:19PM +0900, ts wrote:
[#1249] File.write(path, data)? — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
I am glad to see File.read(path) in Ruby 1.8. But what about
[#1256] testunit, exit status and at_exit — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I'd really like TestUnit to be able to return an exit status when I run
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Sean E. Russell [mailto:ser@germane-software.com] wrote:
Hi,
[#1257] Add have_defined() and rework have_struct_member() — Michal Rokos <m.rokos@...>
Hello,
[#1297] Fix for Bug 1058 — Markus Walser <walser@...>
Hi,
Hi,
On Friday 25 July 2003 10:58, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 25 July 2003 11:46, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
I tried to figure out what's wrong. So far I havn't a solution:
Hello,
> Check the value of klass by
Hi,
[#1309] exceptions and such — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
[#1310] adding NodeDump and ii — nobu.nokada@...
Hi,
>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:
Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory
Hi,
At Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:16:06 +0900,
ts wrote:
> >> #108454 0x080485f6 in main ()
> >> #108455 0x08048515 in _start ()
>
> n> I can't get what you mean, these seem to be called normally.
>
> 108455 call ?
I see. Didn't think you mean the level.
> Try to reproduce the error and you'll see that the number of call is
> less than 108455 when ruby is stopped by stack_check().
>
> How ruby can make 108455 calls ?
I got only 69440 calls until stack_check() failed, with ulimit
1000000.
#0 rb_exc_raise (mesg=1075764192) at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/eval.c:3922
#1 0x08068364 in stack_check () at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/eval.c:4603
#2 0x08063318 in rb_call0 (klass=1075784832, recv=1075782312, id=7217, oid=3213763016, argc=1,
argv=0xbf8e2430, body=0x401f2708, nosuper=1) at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/eval.c:4853
#3 0x0805a264 in rb_call (klass=1075784832, recv=1075782312, mid=7217, argc=1, argv=0xbf8e2430,
scope=1) at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/eval.c:5105
#4 0x0805a40e in rb_funcall (recv=1075782312, mid=7217, n=1) at ruby.h:643
#5 0x08077f8c in io_write (io=1075782312, str=1076145056) at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/io.c:419
#6 0x080683f7 in call_cfunc (func=0x8077ebc <io_write>, recv=1075782312, len=-1081204280, argc=1,
argv=0x8068352) at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/eval.c:4751
(snip)
#69434 0x40017afc in test_free (info=0x813d918) at test.c:11
#69435 0x080535b3 in ruby_finalize () at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/eval.c:1332
#69436 0x0805368c in ruby_cleanup (ex=0) at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/eval.c:1359
#69437 0x080537e0 in ruby_stop (ex=0) at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/eval.c:1387
#69438 0x08053828 in ruby_run () at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/eval.c:1399
#69439 0x080525fd in main (argc=4, argv=0xbffff6d4, envp=0xbffff6e8)
at /home/nobu/src/ruby/1.8/main.c:50
#69440 0x400a9a07 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
> >> bad value from getrlimit() ????
>
> n> On my machine, it was stopped by stack_check() in rb_call0().
>
> This is this that I don't understand : ruby is not stopped by
> stack_check() and can have 108455 call. This is the value of 108455 that I
> find strange.
stack_check() can't be perfect. I suspect Eugene might set
the stack size unlimited.
--
Nobu Nakada