[#35961] require performance on 1.9 — Xavier Shay <xavier-list@...>
Hello,
11 messages
2011/05/01
[#35985] [Backport92 - Backport #4641][Open] Please backport r31418 to 1.9.2 stable branch — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>
3 messages
2011/05/03
[#35997] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #4644][Open] DateTime.new does not work with Float — Stefan Radomski <gibheer@...>
4 messages
2011/05/04
[#36013] [Ruby 1.9 - RubySpec #4649][Open] Adding parallel constructors to Ruby 2.0 — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
9 messages
2011/05/05
[#36046] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4655][Open] String#to_c does not support scientific notation — Tinco Andringa <mail@...>
7 messages
2011/05/08
[#36058] draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3 — "Yuki Sonoda (Yugui)" <yugui@...>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
18 messages
2011/05/09
[#36087] Re: draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3
— Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
2011/05/10
Hi Yugui, is there any plans for the next patch release of 1.9.2?
[#36102] maintenance plan of Ruby 1.9.1 and 1.9.2
— "Yuki Sonoda (Yugui)" <yugui@...>
2011/05/11
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[#36108] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4666][Open] set ruby compatibility version to 1.9.3 in trunk — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>
7 messages
2011/05/11
[#36109] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4666][Open] set ruby compatibility version to 1.9.3 in trunk
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/05/11
Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> wrote:
[#36112] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4666][Open] set ruby compatibility version to 1.9.3 in trunk
— Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
2011/05/11
> Even if 1.9.3 is still binary-compatible with 1.9.1, I think that it would be easier to change
[#36124] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4666][Open] set ruby compatibility version to 1.9.3 in trunk
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2011/05/12
2011/5/12 Urabe Shyouhei <[email protected]>:
[#36131] Re: [ruby-cvs:38172] Ruby:r30989 (trunk): * include/ruby/win32.h: define WIN32 if neither _WIN64 nor WIN32 defined. it forces to use push/pop for pack(4) pragma. — "Yuki Sonoda (Yugui)" <yugui@...>
Hi arton,
7 messages
2011/05/12
[#36132] Re: [ruby-cvs:38172] Ruby:r30989 (trunk): * include/ruby/win32.h: define WIN32 if neither _WIN64 nor WIN32 defined. it forces to use push/pop for pack(4) pragma.
— arton <artonx@...>
2011/05/12
Hi,
[#36150] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4680][Open] [PATCH] io.c: fix busy wait with sendfile() — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
5 messages
2011/05/12
[#36156] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4683][Open] [PATCH] io.c: copy_stream execute interrupts and retry — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
11 messages
2011/05/12
[#36167] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4421] [ext/openssl] Fix RSA public key encoding — Hiroshi NAKAMURA <nakahiro@...>
4 messages
2011/05/13
[#36255] Whitespace conventions? — Steve Klabnik <steve@...>
So, while working on some documentation, I've noticed that there's a lot of
12 messages
2011/05/17
[#36258] Re: Whitespace conventions?
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2011/05/17
2011/5/17 Steve Klabnik <[email protected]>:
[#36285] unable to load irb, 1.9.3 mingw — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>
Hello all, with mingw 1.9.3, I get the following when trying to load irb:
4 messages
2011/05/17
[#36314] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #3167] RDoc issues in interactive mode — Benoit Daloze <redmine@...>
3 messages
2011/05/18
[#36316] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4731][Open] ruby -S irb fails with mingw/msys vanilla builds — Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@...>
12 messages
2011/05/18
[#38075] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4731] ruby -S irb fails with mingw/msys vanilla builds
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2011/07/15
[#38098] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4731] ruby -S irb fails with mingw/msys vanilla builds
— Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
2011/07/16
Hi,
[#38108] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4731] ruby -S irb fails with mingw/msys vanilla builds
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2011/07/16
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Nobuyoshi Nakada <[email protected]> wrot=
[#36322] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4734][Assigned] [ext/openssl] DSA#sign error — Martin Bosslet <Martin.Bosslet@...>
5 messages
2011/05/18
[#36337] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #3905] rb_clear_cache_by_class() called often during GC for non-blocking I/O — Akira Tanaka <akr@...>
8 messages
2011/05/19
[#36798] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #3905] rb_clear_cache_by_class() called often during GC for non-blocking I/O
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/06/06
Akira Tanaka <[email protected]> wrote:
[#36908] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #3905] rb_clear_cache_by_class() called often during GC for non-blocking I/O
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2011/06/10
Hi,
[#36910] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #3905] rb_clear_cache_by_class() called often during GC for non-blocking I/O
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/06/10
SASADA Koichi <[email protected]> wrote:
[#36373] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4757][Open] Attempt to make Enumerator docs more clear (patch included) — David Copeland <davetron5000@...>
9 messages
2011/05/21
[#36433] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4757][Open] Attempt to make Enumerator docs more clear (patch included)
— Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
2011/05/24
[#37052] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4757][Open] Attempt to make Enumerator docs more clear (patch included)
— Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2011/06/12
2011/5/25 Yusuke Endoh <[email protected]>:
[#36648] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4757] Attempt to make Enumerator docs more clear (patch included)
— Eric Hodel <[email protected]>
2011/05/31
[#36374] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4758][Open] yaml file not human readable when saving utf-8 — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>
7 messages
2011/05/21
[#36390] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4766][Open] Range#bsearch — Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
23 messages
2011/05/22
[#38148] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4766] Range#bsearch
— Eric Hodel <[email protected]>
2011/07/17
[#38149] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4766] Range#bsearch
— Michael Edgar <adgar@...>
2011/07/18
On Jul 17, 2011, at 7:54 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
[#36395] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4769][Open] Updated SMTP standards — "J.R. Garcia" <mrjohngarcia@...>
5 messages
2011/05/22
[#36406] 1.8.7 release next month — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
Hello core people,
18 messages
2011/05/23
[#36414] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2011/05/23
2011/5/23 Urabe Shyouhei <[email protected]>:
[#36487] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
2011/05/26
Hi Luis,
[#36488] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Hidetoshi NAGAI <nagai@...>
2011/05/26
From: Urabe Shyouhei <[email protected]>
[#36496] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Hidetoshi NAGAI <nagai@...>
2011/05/26
From: Hidetoshi NAGAI <[email protected]>
[#36712] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
2011/06/03
Ping Luis, how's it going?
[#36748] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2011/06/05
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Urabe Shyouhei <[email protected]> wro=
[#36751] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Hidetoshi NAGAI <nagai@...>
2011/06/05
Hi,
[#36777] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2011/06/06
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Hidetoshi NAGAI <[email protected]> wr=
[#36778] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
2011/06/06
(06/06/2011 01:16 PM), Luis Lavena wrote:
[#37212] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2011/06/18
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Urabe Shyouhei <[email protected]> wro=
[#37229] Re: 1.8.7 release next month
— Hidetoshi NAGAI <nagai@...>
2011/06/20
From: Luis Lavena <[email protected]>
[#36419] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4772][Open] Hash#add_keys — Joey Zhou <yimutang@...>
13 messages
2011/05/24
[#36429] GC thought — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>
Hello all.
10 messages
2011/05/24
[#36447] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4777][Open] Ruby 1.9.2-p180 ignoring INT, TERM, and QUIT until it receives CONT — Nathan Sobo <nathansobo@...>
10 messages
2011/05/25
[#36463] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4778][Open] IO#each_chomped — Joey Zhou <yimutang@...>
12 messages
2011/05/25
[#36474] Error reporting, backtraces and the debugger — Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@...>
Dear people,
6 messages
2011/05/26
[#36479] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4784][Open] Import the JSON library — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>
8 messages
2011/05/26
[#36494] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4786][Open] RCR new Feature: Numeric#grouped — Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@...>
9 messages
2011/05/26
[#36528] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4795][Open] Nested classes don't seem to resolve correctly when another class exists with the same name — John Feminella <johnf@...>
5 messages
2011/05/28
[#36536] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #3924] Performance bug (in require?) — Xavier Shay <xavier-list@...>
3 messages
2011/05/28
[#36550] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4798][Open] test_process and test_signal errors and halts on Windows — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
3 messages
2011/05/29
[#36551] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4799][Open] M17N tests are too JP specific — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
5 messages
2011/05/29
[#36558] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #3924] Performance bug (in require?) — Xavier Shay <xavier-list@...>
12 messages
2011/05/29
[#36586] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #3924] Performance bug (in require?)
— Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...>
2011/05/30
Hello,
[#36589] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #3924] Performance bug (in require?)
— Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...>
2011/05/30
Hello, Xavier
[#36559] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings — Tom Wardrop <tom@...>
48 messages
2011/05/30
[#36560] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2011/05/30
Hi,
[#36571] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Anurag Priyam <anurag08priyam@...>
2011/05/30
> Iff =A0{'key': 'value'} means {:key =3D> 'value'} I have no objection.
[#36573] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2011/05/30
Hi,
[#36578] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Cezary <cezary.baginski@...>
2011/05/30
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 04:21:32PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#36580] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
2011/05/30
Em 30-05-2011 07:58, Cezary escreveu:
[#36581] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Michael Edgar <adgar@...>
2011/05/30
Since :"#{abc}" is allowed in Ruby, I imagine that any such substitute =
[#36582] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
2011/05/30
Em 30-05-2011 09:05, Michael Edgar escreveu:
[#36587] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Cezary <cezary.baginski@...>
2011/05/30
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 09:05:04PM +0900, Michael Edgar wrote:
[#36588] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Michael Edgar <adgar@...>
2011/05/30
On May 30, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Cezary wrote:
[#36680] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Kurt Stephens <ks@...>
2011/06/02
On 5/30/11 9:24 AM, Michael Edgar wrote:
[#36682] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@...>
2011/06/02
On 02/06/2011, at 10:28 AM, Kurt Stephens wrote:
[#36686] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Bill Kelly <billk@...>
2011/06/02
[#36687] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Kurt Stephens <ks@...>
2011/06/02
On 6/1/11 10:17 PM, Bill Kelly wrote:
[#36596] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Piotr Szotkowski <chastell@...>
2011/05/30
Cezary:
[#36631] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4801][Open] Shorthand Hash Syntax for Strings
— Cezary <cezary.baginski@...>
2011/05/31
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:55:39AM +0900, Piotr Szotkowski wrote:
[#36565] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4803][Open] RCLASS_SUPER won't compile for C extensions as of revision 31627 — Daniel Azuma <dazuma@...>
8 messages
2011/05/30
[#36721] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4803] RCLASS_SUPER won't compile for C extensions as of revision 31627
— Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@...>
2011/06/03
[#36773] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4803] RCLASS_SUPER won't compile for C extensions as of revision 31627
— Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
2011/06/06
Hi,
[#36628] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4805][Open] Add X509::Name#hash_old for 0.9.X compat — Hiroshi NAKAMURA <nakahiro@...>
7 messages
2011/05/31
[ruby-core:35995] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2011-05-04 04:54:21 UTC
List:
ruby-core #35995
KOSAKI Motohiro <[email protected]> wrote: > diff --git a/ext/-test-/wait_for_single_fd/wait_for_single_fd.c > b/ext/-test-/wait_for_single_fd/wait_for_single_fd.c > index d406724..6efd1af 100644 > --- a/ext/-test-/wait_for_single_fd/wait_for_single_fd.c > +++ b/ext/-test-/wait_for_single_fd/wait_for_single_fd.c > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ Init_wait_for_single_fd(void) > rb_define_const(rb_cObject, "RB_WAITFD_IN", INT2NUM(RB_WAITFD_IN)); > rb_define_const(rb_cObject, "RB_WAITFD_OUT", INT2NUM(RB_WAITFD_OUT)); > rb_define_const(rb_cObject, "RB_WAITFD_PRI", INT2NUM(RB_WAITFD_PRI)); > + rb_define_const(rb_cObject, "INT_MAX", INT2NUM(INT_MAX)); > rb_define_singleton_method(rb_cIO, "wait_for_single_fd", > wait_for_single_fd, 3); > > Strongly disagree. Any language change should be passed matz review. Huh? ext/-test-/* is only loaded during tests and never installed. No users see anything in ext/-test-/* > 1) use ppoll(2) if available. and use INT_MAX if unavailable. or > 2) fallback select(2) > > 1) is safe because linux has ppol(2). OK, good point about ppoll(), I forgot that exists. I'll work on that later or tomorrow. > if (result > 0) { > - /* remain compatible with select(2)-based implementation */ > + /* > + * Remain compatible with the select(2)-based implementation: > + * 1) mask out poll()-only revents such as POLLHUP/POLLERR > + * 2) In case revents only consists of masked-out events, return all > + * requested events in the result and force the caller to make an > + * extra syscall (e.g. read/write/send/recv) to get the error. > + */ > result = (int)(fds.revents & fds.events); > return result == 0 ? events : result; > } > > I don't understand this. Why does this behavior help to compatible? > When do we use it? We need to ensure rb_wait_for_single_fd(fd, events, timeval) returns only a subset of its +events+ argument because that's all select() is capable of. If poll() returns POLLHUP/POLLERR, we should not expose those flags to callers of rb_wait_for_single_fd() since it would then behave differently if poll() or select() were used. int events = RB_WAITFD_IN | RB_WAITFD_OUT; int revents = rb_wait_for_single_fd(fd, events, NULL); /* poll() itself may return POLLERR, but we prevent it from being in * revents since select() can't return that */ if (revents & RB_WAITFD_IN) { /* since we don't know POLLERR, we fall back to fail here */ if (read(fd, ...) < 0) rb_sys_fail(0); } if (revents & RB_WAITFD_OUT) { /* since we don't know POLLERR, we fall back to fail here */ if (write(fd, ...) < 0) rb_sys_fail(0); } /* user code shouldn't care about anything else since it only * requested RB_WAITFD_IN|RB_WAITFD_OUT */ -- Eric Wong