[#14696] Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>

Why can you not rescue return, break, etc when they are within

21 messages 2008/01/02
[#14699] Re: Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/02

[#14738] Enumerable#zip Needs Love — James Gray <james@...>

The community has been building a Ruby 1.9 compatibility tip list on

15 messages 2008/01/03
[#14755] Re: Enumerable#zip Needs Love — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2008/01/04

Hello James,

[#14772] Manual Memory Management — Pramukta Kumar <prak@...>

I was thinking it would be nice to be able to free large objects at

36 messages 2008/01/04
[#14788] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/05

I would only like to add that RMgick for example provides free method to

[#14824] Re: Manual Memory Management — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2008/01/07

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:49:30 +0900, Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@gmail.com> wrote:

[#14825] Re: Manual Memory Management — "Evan Weaver" <evan@...> 2008/01/07

Python supports 'del reference', which decrements the reference

[#14838] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/08

Evan Weaver wrote:

[#14911] Draft of some pages about encoding in Ruby 1.9 — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

24 messages 2008/01/10

[#14976] nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>

The following just appeared in the ChangeLog

37 messages 2008/01/11
[#14977] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14978] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14979] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#14993] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14980] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/11

[#14981] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14995] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:

[#15050] how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...>

Core Rubies:

17 messages 2008/01/13
[#15060] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 08:54 AM, Phlip wrote:

[#15062] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...> 2008/01/14

Eric Hodel wrote:

[#15073] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 20:35 PM, Phlip wrote:

[#15185] Friendlier methods to compare two Time objects — "Jim Cropcho" <jim.cropcho@...>

Hello,

10 messages 2008/01/22

[#15194] Can large scale projects be successful implemented around a dynamic programming language? — Jordi <mumismo@...>

A good article I have found (may have been linked by slashdot, don't know)

8 messages 2008/01/24

[#15248] Symbol#empty? ? — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

24 messages 2008/01/28
[#15250] Re: Symbol#empty? ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/28

Hi,

[BUG]Very strange bug which causes segmentation fault.

From: "=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rados=B3aw_Bu=B3at?=" <radek.bulat@...>
Date: 2008-01-13 21:12:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #15055
I found very, very strange bug in ruby 1.9. I've discovered that
executing my ~/.irbrc file causes segmentation fault. I've tried to
cut down source but I failed. Every time I do very small change (for
example delete some method definition) bug doesn't appear. Even if I
remove some gem (which is not used at all!) bug doesn't appear. So I
describe all steps to reproduce this bug, because I have to small
knowledge to spy this bug.

I've filed this bug also on rubyforge Ruby bugs tracker
(http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=16679&group_id=426&atid=1698).

STEP TO REPRODUCE

* Check out new version of ruby (I've tried with 15010 revision),
compile and install to some directory (--prefix and --program-suffix
option are useful, I've used --prefix=/home/radarek/opt,
--program-suffix=1.9). It's very important to use clean ruby
installation (I'll explain later).

* Install some gems, gem1.9 install GEM (small digression: I've
fetched and installed it manually, 'gem install ...' has some problems
with installation)
- wirble
- utility_belt

* Patch wirble.rb (you find it in wirble gem directory)  with
http://code.tie-rack.org/cms/wirble/wirble.rb_no_more_1.9_errors.patch
file.

* Download my .irbrc file from:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/download.php/426/1698/16679/3103/.irbrc.
Try run this file.
* Execute .irbrc file


When I execute it I have following errors:

Loaded suite .irbrc
Started
..
Finished in 0.000714944 seconds.

2 tests, 3 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors
<dummy toplevel>:126: [BUG] Segmentation fault
ruby 1.9.0 (2008-01-13 revision 0) [x86_64-linux]

-- control frame ----------
c:0001 p:0000 s:0002 b:0002 l:000001 d:000001 TOP    <dummy toplevel>:126
---------------------------
-- backtrace of native function call (Use addr2line) --
0x4acccf
0x4cb14e
0x4cb2a1
0x47d7b3
0x2b657ff05100
0x7f6420
-------------------------------------------------------
Aborted (core dumped)


But there are some weird things:
- when I comment out some method definition (which are not used), for
example 'ri', 'qri' and run again - bugs doesn't appear
- when I manually delete utility_belt gem directory and run again -
bugs doesn't appear (look at the .irbrc source file, 'require
"utility_belt" is commented out!)
- sometimes (but very rarely, maybe 5% chance) everything is ok

Can anyone reproduce it?

-- 
Rados梶w Buウat

http://radarek.jogger.pl - m blog

In This Thread

Prev Next