[#23457] [Bug #1471] "Mutual join" deadlock detection faulty in 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 — John Carter <redmine@...>

Bug #1471: "Mutual join" deadlock detection faulty in 1.8.6 and 1.8.7

17 messages 2009/05/15

[#23483] [Bug #1478] Ruby archive — Oleg Puchinin <redmine@...>

Bug #1478: Ruby archive

29 messages 2009/05/16
[#29225] [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Luis Lavena <redmine@...> 2010/04/02

Issue #1478 has been updated by Luis Lavena.

[#30345] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2010/05/21

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 17:13, Luis Lavena <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#30346] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@...> 2010/05/21

> Thanks for your comment.

[#30347] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@...> 2010/05/21

OK Hiroshi, I read some of the comments earlier in the thread that I

[#30355] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...> 2010/05/21

On 5/20/10, Jonathan Nielsen <jonathan@jmnet.us> wrote:

[#30364] Re: [Feature #1478] Ruby archive — Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...> 2010/05/22

Hi,

[#23505] [Bug #1494] tempfile#unlink may silently fail on windows — Nicholas Manning <redmine@...>

Bug #1494: tempfile#unlink may silently fail on windows

19 messages 2009/05/19

[#23572] [Bug #1525] Deadlock in Ruby 1.9's VM caused by ConditionVariable.wait and fork? — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #1525: Deadlock in Ruby 1.9's VM caused by ConditionVariable.wait and fork?

27 messages 2009/05/27

[#23595] Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>

The RUBY_PLATFORM constant is documented in the latest Pickaxe as "The

17 messages 2009/05/28
[#23596] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:

[#23602] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:

[#23608] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2009/05/28

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:

[#23609] Re: Meaning of RUBY_PLATFORM — Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> 2009/05/29

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:

[ruby-core:23423] Re: [Bug #1363] Wrong value for Hash of NaN

From: Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
Date: 2009-05-11 10:03:59 UTC
List: ruby-core #23423
Hi,

At Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:38:31 +0900,
Heesob Park wrote in [ruby-core:23154]:
> Ruby cannot handle NaN as a unique key of Hash.

It's easy to make them unique as key, I'm not sure which is
"correct" behavior though.

> I think this is related with the NaN comparing problem:
> 
> irb(main):001:0> 0/0.0 == 0/0.0
> => false
> irb(main):002:0> a = 0/0.0
> => NaN
> irb(main):003:0> a == a
> => false
> irb(main):004:0> a <=> a
> => nil

I think it's mathematically correct behavior, and different
thing from Hash.


Index: numeric.c
===================================================================
--- numeric.c	(revision 23390)
+++ numeric.c	(working copy)
@@ -1127,7 +1127,6 @@ flo_eql(VALUE x, VALUE y)
 	double a = RFLOAT_VALUE(x);
 	double b = RFLOAT_VALUE(y);
-#if defined(_MSC_VER) && _MSC_VER < 1300
-	if (isnan(a) || isnan(b)) return Qfalse;
-#endif
+	if (isnan(a) && isnan(b))
+	    return memcmp(&a, &b, sizeof(a)) ? Qfalse : Qtrue;
 	if (a == b)
 	    return Qtrue;


-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread