[#61171] Re: [ruby-changes:33145] normal:r45224 (trunk): gc.c: fix build for testing w/o RGenGC — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
(2014/03/01 16:15), normal wrote:
3 messages
2014/03/01
[#61243] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9425] [PATCH] st: use power-of-two sizes to avoid slow modulo ops — normalperson@...
Issue #9425 has been updated by Eric Wong.
4 messages
2014/03/03
[#61359] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs — normalperson@...
Issue #9609 has been reported by Eric Wong.
5 messages
2014/03/07
[#61360] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/03/07
(2014/03/07 19:09), [email protected] wrote:
[#61362] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/07
SASADA Koichi <[email protected]> wrote:
[#61424] [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I'm unsure about this. I _hate_ the extra branches this adds;
13 messages
2014/03/12
[#61466] Re: [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/03/13
Hi Eric,
[#61471] Re: [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/13
SASADA Koichi <[email protected]> wrote:
[#61508] Re: [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/03/15
(2014/03/14 2:12), Eric Wong wrote:
[#61509] Re: [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/15
SASADA Koichi <[email protected]> wrote:
[#61510] Re: [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/03/15
(2014/03/15 17:34), Eric Wong wrote:
[#61452] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [Open] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been reported by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/03/13
[#61496] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9638] [Open] [PATCH] limit IDs to 32-bits on 64-bit systems — normalperson@...
Issue #9638 has been reported by Eric Wong.
4 messages
2014/03/14
[#61568] hash function for global method cache — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I came upon this because I noticed existing st numtable worked poorly
7 messages
2014/03/17
[#61605] Re: hash function for global method cache
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/03/20
(2014/03/18 8:03), Eric Wong wrote:
[#61606] Re: hash function for global method cache
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/20
SASADA Koichi <[email protected]> wrote:
[#61631] Re: hash function for global method cache
— =?KOI8-R?B?4NLJyiDzz8vPzM/X?= <funny.falcon@...>
2014/03/22
what's the profit from using binary tree in place of hash?
[#61632] Re: hash function for global method cache
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/03/22
Юрий Соколов <[email protected]> wrote:
[#61687] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9606] Ocassional SIGSEGV inTestException#test_machine_stackoverflow on OpenBSD — normalperson@...
Issue #9606 has been updated by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/03/26
[#61760] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been updated by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/03/30
[ruby-core:61197] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9507] Ruby 2.1.0 is broken on ARMv5: tried to create Proc object without a block
From:
normalperson@...
Date:
2014-03-01 21:13:39 UTC
List:
ruby-core #61197
Issue #9507 has been updated by Eric Wong. [email protected] wrote: > <blockquote> > Can you try any other code which uses 64-bit math? > </blockquote> > > Can you recommend any test code? Those compilers build the whole Arch Linux ARM repository, so if it were a common problem, it should have been noticed by now. Maybe some crypto or audio/video codecs. It could also be compiler options for math worth trying. > <blockquote> > 64-bits is needed to avoid overflow on VM state changes. > Otherwise our caches could give false hits and crash. > </blockquote> > I see. But isn't it dangerous then to fall back to `unsigned long`, > which only guarantees at least 32 bits? Or is the probability for a > crash with only 32 bits still very low, and 64 bits just provide some > extra safety? unsigned long is 64-bits on 64-bit systems. The probability of a 32-bit crash is low and only affects codebases with frequent dynamic method/module/class/const creation. Maybe few use the 32-bit unsigned long case and don't hit the problem. ---------------------------------------- Bug #9507: Ruby 2.1.0 is broken on ARMv5: tried to create Proc object without a block https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9507#change-45554 * Author: _ _ * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: Charlie Somerville * Category: core * Target version: current: 2.2.0 * ruby -v: ruby 2.1.0dev (2013-09-04 trunk 42822) [armv5tel-linux-eabi] * Backport: 1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I'm using Arch Linux ARM which currently ships with Ruby 2.1.0. On all my ARMv5 devices, trying to run Ruby fails with a strange error, which has also been reported here: https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/issues/705 ARMv6 and ARMv7 devices on the other hand seem to be fine. Using git-bisect I was able to determine that the first bad commit is 2f522b9cc6f3e184404040b12af4486520a73b26 (r42822), which implements #8426: [root@alarm ~]# ruby --version ruby 2.1.0dev (2013-09-04 trunk 42822) [armv5tel-linux-eabi] [root@alarm ~]# ruby -e 'puts "foo"' /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/requirement.rb:26:in `lambda': tried to create Proc object without a block (ArgumentError) from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/requirement.rb:26:in `<class:Requirement>' from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/requirement.rb:18:in `<top (required)>' from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/specification.rb:10:in `require' from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/specification.rb:10:in `<top (required)>' from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems.rb:1161:in `require' from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems.rb:1161:in `<module:Gem>' from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems.rb:114:in `<top (required)>' from <internal:gem_prelude>:1:in `require' from <internal:gem_prelude>:1:in `<compiled>' The previous commit works correctly: [root@alarm ~]# ruby --version ruby 2.1.0dev (2013-09-04 trunk 42821) [armv5tel-linux-eabi] [root@alarm ~]# ruby -e 'puts "foo"' foo The problem is still present in trunk (r44896). ---Files-------------------------------- 0002-Use-only-unsigned-long-for-rb_serial_t.patch (538 Bytes) -- http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/