[#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: stack problem
Hi, At Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:47:03 +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > > > I don't know what makes you think that rounding by pagesize might be > > > better: it is not quite obvious to me. So I would enjoy an explanation. > > Just it would be faster. No matter. > > Ok, for the speed improvement, I'm not convinced, unless someone finds a > way to be forced to call ruby_init after a multi-megabyte ALLOCA, but I > can't see that ever taking more than a few millisecs. Agree. It's just a thought. > Next, my concern is this: > > volatile char *p = bp - size; > (void)*p; > > Is this resistant to heavy optimisation? I mean, (void)*p can be reduced > to nothingness, despite the volatility of the target data. I was writing > to a volatile dummy variable using the result from the read, to ensure > that the read was being done. Such "optimization" should be wrong. If a volatile variable is memory mapped I/O, just reading is meaningful. If a compiler does reduce it, the compiler has a bug in the optimizer. > Maybe I don't completely know what "volatile" is supposed to mean (?) IIRC, all optimization for volatile access must be suppressed. However, I noticed that there is no check for volatile. Does anyone know from when autoconf has AC_C_VOLATILE? -- Nobu Nakada