[#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

22 messages 2003/07/01
[#1208] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/01

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1209] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/02

ts wrote:

[#1210] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/02

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1211] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1212] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/04

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1213] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1214] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/04

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1215] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1237] FTP.new with block — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

Hi,

22 messages 2003/07/19
[#1238] Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/19

>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:

[#1240] Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/07/19

[#1297] Fix for Bug 1058 — Markus Walser <walser@...>

Hi,

16 messages 2003/07/25

Re: stack problem

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2003-07-15 21:03:20 UTC
List: ruby-core #1235
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 01:26:43AM +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> > As an explanation for the code snippet: I want to find the bottom of the
> > stack, to tell Init_stack about it, because it can't find it by itself; i
> > could use (VALUE *)0xBFFFFFFC, but I want to be a bit more
> > system-independant than that... Is there a quicker, systematic way of
> > finding the bottom of the stack?
> If you pass NULL Ruby will take the address of a variable in the stack,
> hence recording the bottom of the stack _at that point in time_.

you mean recording the top of the system stack, and using it as a bottom
of the stack, beyond which ruby will not check for VALUEs.

> You can ensure things will work OK by calling Init_stack at the
> beginning of every access point (function called by the main program).

Interesting. This would work for me; however it would still be convenient
to not have to rely on modifying every access point.

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju



In This Thread