[#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:61603] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9475] Behavior change with include + super + alias_method between 1.9.x and 2.x
From:
nobu@...
Date:
2014-03-20 03:59:25 UTC
List:
ruby-core #61603
Issue #9475 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada. Description updated Backport changed from 1.9.3: REQUIRED, 2.0.0: REQUIRED, 2.1: REQUIRED to 1.9.3: DONTNEED, 2.0.0: REQUIRED, 2.1: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- Bug #9475: Behavior change with include + super + alias_method between 1.9.x and 2.x https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9475#change-45879 * Author: Ben Weintraub * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal * Assignee: Nobuyoshi Nakada * Category: * Target version: * ruby -v: ruby 2.1.0p0 (2013-12-25 revision 44422) [x86_64-darwin12.0] * Backport: 1.9.3: DONTNEED, 2.0.0: REQUIRED, 2.1: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- Ruby 2.0 appears to have introduced a subtle behavior change in method resolution that persists in 2.1.0. The attached test case (also visible online at https://gist.github.com/benweint/8791007) is extracted from an actual application, and while I won't defend the need to do something like this, it is clear that the behavior changed in 2.0. Note that this sounds similar to https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9236 but is in fact distinct - the test case given in that bug was fixed in Ruby 2.1. Steps to reproduce: 1. Run the attached testcase on Ruby 1.9.3 note the output 2. Run the attached testcase on Ruby 2.0.0-p353 or 2.1.0-p0, and note the output Expected results: While it's certainly not obvious to me what 'should' happen when executing this code, on 1.9.3, it produces this output: ~~~ foo from C foo from B foo from A ~~~ Actual results: On 2.0+, I get this instead ~~~ foo from C foo from B foo from B (again) foo from B foo from B (again) foo from B ... previous two lines repeated many times ... test.rb:11: stack level too deep (SystemStackError) ~~~ That is to say, on 2.0, we get into an infinitely recursive loop that doesn't happen with 1.9.3. ---Files-------------------------------- test.rb (340 Bytes) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/