[#35599] Proc#== behaviour on 1.8.7 and 1.9.2 — Adam Prescott <adam@...>
I've encountered a problem when using Proc#== (with both lambdas and
[#35613] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4539][Assigned] Array#zip_with — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4539
Hi,
[#35618] Redmine issues — Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...>
Hello,
[#35621] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4555][Open] [PATCH] ext/socket/init.c: rsock_connect retries on interrupt — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[#35629] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4473] Calling return within begin still executes else — Mayank Kohaley <redmine@...>
[#35631] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4558][Open] TestSocket#test_closed_read fails after r31230 — Tomoyuki Chikanaga <redmine@...>
> ----------------------------------------
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
Tomoyuki Chikanaga <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Issue #4558 has been updated by Eric Wong.
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
[#35632] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4559][Open] Proc#== does not match the documented behaviour — Adam Prescott <redmine@...>
(2012/11/28 16:10), matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
I believe this will be a spec change, albeit a small one. Can we
[#35636] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4560][Open] [PATCH] lib/net/protocol.rb: avoid exceptions in rbuf_fill — Eric Wong <redmine@...>
[#35637] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4561][Open] 1.9.2 requires parentheses around argument of method call in an array, where 1.8.7 did not — Dave Schweisguth <redmine@...>
[#35644] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #4563][Open] Dir#tell broken — Daniel Berger <redmine@...>
[#35648] mvm branch status? — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Hello, I noticed the "mvm" branch in SVN hasn't been updated in over a year.
Hi Eric.
Has there been any thought on solving the C extension problem in MVM? In the present state, I've stopped working on it in Rubinius because there is no workable solution if there are C extensions in the mix.
Evan Phoenix <evan@fallingsnow.net> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#35666] caching of the ancestor chain — Xavier Noria <fxn@...>
Why does Ruby cache the ancestors chain? I mean, not why the implementation implies that, but why it works that way conceptually.
Ah, in case it is not clear, where I find the metaphor broken is in that you can add methods to a mixin and have them available in classes that already included it, but if you include a new ancestor, then method dispatch in classes that already included the module aren't aware of the new chain.
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#35678] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4564][Open] mingw-w64, truncate, ftruncate and ftello -- properly evalute it's existence — Luis Lavena <redmine@...>
[#35699] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4568][Open] [PATCH] file.c (rb_group_member): kill 256K of stack usage — redmine@...
[#35707] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4569][Open] Replace IPAddr with IPAddress — redmine@...
[#35713] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4571][Open] YAML.load given an ISO8601 timestamp creates an incorrect value for usec — redmine@...
[#35734] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4574][Open] Numeric#within — redmine@...
[#35753] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576][Open] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — redmine@...
Hi,
2011/9/16 Kenta Murata <muraken@gmail.com>:
2011/9/16 Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@marc-andre.ca>:
On 16 September 2011 15:49, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
Can somebody please reopen this issue? Since the test suite fix is
2011/9/17 Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@marc-andre.ca>:
2011/9/17 Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org>:
(2011/09/17 9:07), Tanaka Akira wrote:
I have not been watching ruby-core, but let me give a comment for this issue.
2011/9/17 Masahiro TANAKA <masa16.tanaka@gmail.com>:
2011/9/20 Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org>:
I haven't explained the reason of the error estimation in
On 21 September 2011 14:25, masa <masa16.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
[#35754] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4577][Open] (int...float).max should not raise an error — redmine@...
[#35759] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #4578][Open] Fixnum.freeze not frozen? — redmine@...
[#35765] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4579][Open] SecureRandom + OpenSSL may repeat with fork — redmine@...
[#35777] hashes are not consistent across ruby processes? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>
Hello all.
[#35813] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4320] Bus Error in digest/sha2 on sparc — redmine@...
[#35814] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4320] Bus Error in digest/sha2 on sparc — redmine@...
[#35825] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #4587][Open] RMATCH_REGS definition is wrong — redmine@...
[#35828] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4589][Open] add Queue#each() method and include Enumerable — redmine@...
[#35830] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #3436] Spawn the timer thread lazily — redmine@...
[#35850] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4189] FileUtils#ln_r — Sakuro OZAWA <redmine@...>
[#35866] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4603][Open] lib/csv.rb: when the :encoding parameter is not provided, the encoding of CSV data is treated as ASCII-8BIT — yu nobuoka <nobuoka@...>
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:33 AM, yu nobuoka <nobuoka@r-definition.com>wrote:
2011/4/25 James Gray <james@graysoftinc.com>:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:29 PM, NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
[#35879] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4610][Open] Proc#curry behavior is inconsistent with lambdas containing default argument values — Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@...>
[#35883] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4611][Open] [BUG] Segementation fault reported — Deryl Doucette <me@...>
[#35895] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4614][Open] [RFC/PATCH] thread_pthread.c: lower RUBY_STACK_MIN_LIMIT to 64K — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[#35923] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4621][Open] NilClass#to_hash — Tsuyoshi Sawada <sawadatsuyoshi@...>
[#35933] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4623][Open] Consistent crash related to action_mailer — Alex Neth <alex@...>
[#35942] change in timeout error — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>
Hello. Sorry if this is a repeat...
[#35943] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #3905] rb_clear_cache_by_class() called often during GC for non-blocking I/O — Motohiro KOSAKI <kosaki.motohiro@...>
[ruby-core:35598] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4538] [PATCH (cleanup)] avoid unnecessary select() calls before doing I/O
Charles Nutter <headius@headius.com> wrote:
> I wonder, though, if depending on this behavior is leading Ruby more
> and more down the GVL path. The designers of the JVM's core IO
> libraries, for example, were unable to reconcile concurrent native
> threads with interruptible IO, due to the impossibility of knowing
> what state all IO-related data structures are in when the thread is
> interrupted.
I don't think so, even if threads are interrupted they're resumed after
the signal handler is done (or the process is dying anyways and we don't
care). If the interrupt is to raise an exception then that could get
messy[1], but for the general case of signal handlers it's not an issue.
> As a result, IO channels performing blocking operations
> are explicitly closed when the thread they block is interrupted.
That is terrible. I'd never touch a platform that does that.
> It seems that your change (and others like it) makes Ruby even more
> dependent on kernel-level blocking IO operations always being safely
> interruptible, and depending on those interruptions to only occur at
> the exact boundaries defined by the GVL. A future concurrent-threaded
> Ruby (or other impls that may become concurrent-threaded) may want to
> consider this, no? And are there any cross-platform concerns from
> eliminating select in these cases?
If there are cross-platform concerns, the functions that wrap select()
should be made no-op on platforms where select() is not needed (on
all POSIX-like ones, I expect) and not interfere with platforms where
they're not needed.
Regardless, there'll always be a set of IO operations that can never be
interrupted. That doesn't bother me at all since the rest of the VM
still runs. I'd rather just not use select()/poll() at all for
"blocking" I/O calls.
> I also wonder if there's a race condition here; is it not possible
> that the interrupt of a thread would fire immediately after the GVL
> has been released but before the blocking IO operation has fired?
> Perhaps I'm birdwalking too deep into the vagaries of MRI's IO logic.
So a signal handler might fire and the syscall would just continue and
not fail with EINTR. No big deal, it'll just finish the syscall before
checking for interrupts.
The real race condition is relying on select()/poll() at all for
readability. select()/poll() returning success _never_ guarantees an
operation won't block due to spurious wakeups and shared IO across
multiple threads/processes.
[1] - which is why rb_ensure() is used in some places, such as using
with select() for rb_fd_init()/rb_fd_term()
--
Eric Wong