[#39260] RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...>

Before the release of Ruby 1.9.2 it was decided that Ruby releases

59 messages 2011/09/04
[#39276] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2011/09/05

2011/9/5 Marc-Andre Lafortune <[email protected]>:

[#39325] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2011/09/07

I'll jump in with some context from the JRuby perspective.

[#39335] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2011/09/07

2011/9/7 Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]>:

[#39365] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2011/09/08

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:17 AM, NARUSE, Yui <[email protected]> wrote:

[#39366] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/09/08

Hi,

[#39370] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2011/09/08

Yukihiro Matsumoto:

[#39374] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2011/09/08

(2011/09/09 1:29), Michael Klishin wrote:

[#39376] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2011/09/08

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM, NARUSE, Yui <[email protected]> wrote:

[#39379] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — Masaya TARUI <tarui@...> 2011/09/08

Hello Luis,

[#39382] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...> 2011/09/08

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Masaya TARUI <[email protected]> wrote:

[#39386] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2011/09/08

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Luis Lavena <[email protected]> wrote:

[#39267] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5273][Open] Float#round returns the wrong floats for higher precision — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...>

14 messages 2011/09/04

[#39435] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5306][Open] Application Hangs Due to Recent rb_thread_select Changes — Charlie Savage <cfis@...>

27 messages 2011/09/09

[#39498] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5310][Open] Integral objects — Kenta Murata <muraken@...>

13 messages 2011/09/13

[#39539] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5321][Open] Introducing Numeric#exact? and Numeric#inexact? — Kenta Murata <muraken@...>

26 messages 2011/09/14

[#39629] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5341][Open] Add SSL session reuse to Net::HTTP — Eric Hodel <[email protected]>

18 messages 2011/09/19

[#39634] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5343][Open] Unexpected blocking behavior when interrupt Socket#accept — Tomoyuki Chikanaga <nagachika00@...>

10 messages 2011/09/20

[#39673] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5353][Open] TLS v1.0 and less - Attack on CBC mode — Martin Bosslet <Martin.Bosslet@...>

13 messages 2011/09/22

[#39700] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5364][Open] How about new syntax: "object.\method" returns a Method instance? — Joey Zhou <yimutang@...>

20 messages 2011/09/25

[#39740] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5372][Open] Promote blank? to a core protocol — Alex Young <alex@...>

18 messages 2011/09/27
[#39743] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5372][Open] Promote blank? to a core protocol — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2011/09/27

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 06:18:19PM +0900, Alex Young wrote:

[#39754] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5372][Open] Promote blank? to a core protocol — Alex Young <alex@...> 2011/09/27

On 27/09/2011 19:46, Aaron Patterson wrote:

[#39807] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5372][Open] Promote blank? to a core protocol — Eric Hodel <[email protected]> 2011/10/01

On Sep 27, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Alex Young wrote:

[#39751] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5375][Open] [mingw32] segfault on WinXP SP3 with 1.9.3dev@33347 — Jon Forums <redmine@...>

26 messages 2011/09/27

[#39772] ObjectSpace.reference_form(obj) #=> references_array — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

13 messages 2011/09/29
[#39774] Re: ObjectSpace.reference_form(obj) #=> references_array — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2011/09/29

Hi,

[#39796] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5384][Open] Ruby 1.9.3-RC1 Fails to Compile on Solaris — Cyrus Lopez <cyrus@...>

11 messages 2011/09/30

[ruby-core:39510] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number

From: Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>
Date: 2011-09-13 10:46:36 UTC
List: ruby-core #39510
Issue #4576 has been updated by Vit Ondruch.


Please first see the commit [1] and then tell me why the original test case should fail? Actually it fails on i386 and succeeds on x86_64 which is a bit suspicious. So I dig a bit deeper with my colleagues and we found that the test was just fine, but the implementation has issues on i386. This should be hopefully fixed with patch attached to this issue [2]. More detailed explanation can be found in Red Hat bugzilla [3].

[1] http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby-19/repository/revisions/31304/diff/test/ruby/test_range.rb
[2] http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/attachments/2039/0001-Fix-the-ronding-error-causing-wrong-evaluation-of-ra.patch
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=733372
----------------------------------------
Bug #4576: Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4576

Author: Joey Zhou
Status: Closed
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: 
Target version: 
ruby -v: -


=begin
Hi, I find that:

* if: range.exclude_end? == true
* and: any one in [begin_obj, end_obj, step] is a true Float(f.to_i != f)
* and: unless begin_obj + step*int == end_obj
* then: the result will miss the last value.

for example:

 p (1...6.3).step.to_a # => [1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0], no 6.0
 p (1.1...6).step.to_a # => [1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1], no 5.1
 p (1...6).step(1.1).to_a # => [1.0, 2.1, 3.2, 4.300000000000001], no 5.4

 p (1.0...6.6).step(1.9).to_a # => [1.0, 2.9], no 4.8
 p (1.0...6.7).step(1.9).to_a # => [1.0, 2.9, 4.8]
 p (1.0...6.8).step(1.9).to_a # => [1.0, 2.9, 4.8], no 6.7

Maybe the #step is ok on integers, but there's something wrong if the range is end-exclusive and contain float numbers.
=end



-- 
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org

In This Thread