[#100309] How to use backport custom field — Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
Please allow my ignorance.
9 messages
2020/10/06
[#100310] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/06
IkJhY2twb3J0IGN1c3RvbSBmaWVsZCIgaXMgb25seSBhdmFpbGFibGUgZm9yIHRpY2tldHMgd2hv
[#100311] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/06
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 4:44 PM NARUSE, Yui <[email protected]> wrote:
[#100314] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/06
VGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciBjb25maXJtYXRpb24uCkkgY2hlY2tlZCBhZ2FpbiBhbmQgdG8gZWRpdCBi
[#100322] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/07
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 7:25 PM NARUSE, Yui <[email protected]> wrote:
[#100326] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/07
SSBhZGRlZCB5b3UgdG8gIlJlcG9ydGVyIiByb2xlIGluIHRoZSBwcm9qZWN0CgoyMDIw5bm0MTDm
[#100327] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/07
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:42 PM NARUSE, Yui <[email protected]> wrote:
[ruby-core:100632] [Ruby master Feature#17288] Optimize __send__ call with a literal method name
From:
marcandre-ruby-core@...
Date:
2020-10-29 04:06:13 UTC
List:
ruby-core #100632
Issue #17288 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune).
shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) wrote in #note-9:
> @marcandre Here you are:
>
> [snip brilliant code]
0) I was wrong, I retract what I said.
1) My mind is blown. I have always thought of refinements as a way to safely monkey-patch other people's classes, in particular builtin classes. Never as a way to structure access to our own classes. This can also be very fine-grained if desired. This is brilliant @shyouhei!
2) Goto 1
I made a quick POC with RuboCop to isolate methods that I've always wanted to isolate and the only issues was mocking internal methods:
```
Failure/Error: allow(cop).to receive(:complete_investigation).and_return(cop_report)
#<Fake::FakeCop:0x00007fed7e1ce530 ...> does not implement: complete_investigation
```
I'm fine with this, I already try to avoid stub and mocks anyways (10 tests out of 14515 :-) and I'm sure I can find better ways around that.
I also wanted to check any performance impact. I couldn't see any (running tests or running RuboCop). Are there any known circumstances where performance would be affected?
Are there gems using this technique?
Blog posts discussing this?
----------------------------------------
Feature #17288: Optimize __send__ call with a literal method name
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17288#change-88267
* Author: mrkn (Kenta Murata)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
----------------------------------------
I made a patch to optimize a `__send__` call with a literal method name. This optimization replaces a `__send__` method call with a `send` instruction. The patch is available in [this pull-request](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/3707).
By this change, the redefined `__send__` method is no longer called when it is called by a literal method name. I guess it is no problem because the following warning message is displayed for a long time.
$ ruby -e 'def __send__; end'
-e:1: warning: redefining `__send__' may cause serious problems
This change makes the optimized case x5~x6 faster. The benchmark result is below:
```
$ make benchmark COMPARE_RUBY="../../ruby/build-o3/ruby" ITEM=vm_send.yml
(snip)
# Iteration per second (i/s)
| |compare-ruby|built-ruby|
|:------------|-----------:|---------:|
|vm_send | 18.536M| 113.778M|
| | -| 6.14x|
|vm_send_var | 18.085M| 16.595M|
| | 1.09x| -|
```
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>