[#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:61211] [Backport21 - Backport #9575] [Open] Step with 0 step is buggy
From:
ruby-core@...
Date:
2014-03-02 02:09:50 UTC
List:
ruby-core #61211
Issue #9575 has been updated by Marc-Andre Lafortune.
Status changed from Feedback to Open
Yui NARUSE wrote:
> r45209 conflicts with current ruby_2_1 branch.
Right, #9570 must be backported first.
More explicitly, the following will backport both without conflicts:
git cherry-pick c1fc20124c
git cherry-pick e184e31c0956..1636c60fe16
> yeah, could you add NEWS and additional previous commits and NEWS commit?
I pushed r45234 (ec8de033e72935)
I hope that's what you wanted?
----------------------------------------
Backport #9575: Step with 0 step is buggy
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9575#change-45563
* Author: Marc-Andre Lafortune
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Yui NARUSE
----------------------------------------
I didn't realize that we now allow stepping with a '0' step. It should probably have been mentioned in the NEWS of 2.1.0?
Anyways, couple of bugs with that new feature:
bn = 1 << 100
bn.step(by: 0, to: bn).first(2) # => [bn, bn] ok
bn.step(by: 0).first(2) # => [bn.to_f, bn.to_f] not ok
bn.step(by: 0, to: 0).first(2) # => [] not ok
The corresponding `size` don't all work either:
bn.step(by: 0) # => Float::INFINITY, ok
bn.step(by: 0, to: bn).size # => ZeroDivisionError: divided by 0, should be infinity
bn.step(by: 0, to: 0).size # => same
1.step(by:0, to: 42).size # => same
My patch is almost finished.
--
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/