[#63592] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10009] IO operation is 10x slower in multi-thread environment — normalperson@...
Issue #10009 has been updated by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/07/08
[#63682] [ruby-trunk - Feature #10030] [PATCH] reduce rb_iseq_struct to 296 bytes — ko1@...
Issue #10030 has been updated by Koichi Sasada.
3 messages
2014/07/13
[#63703] [ruby-trunk - Feature #10030] [PATCH] reduce rb_iseq_struct to 296 bytes — ko1@...
Issue #10030 has been updated by Koichi Sasada.
3 messages
2014/07/14
[#63743] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10037] Since r46798 on Solaris, "[BUG] rb_vm_get_cref: unreachable" during make — ngotogenome@...
Issue #10037 has been updated by Naohisa Goto.
3 messages
2014/07/15
[#64136] Ruby 2.1.2 (and 2.1.1 and probably others) assumes a libffi with 3 version numbers in extconf.rb — "Jeffrey 'jf' Lim" <jfs.world@...>
As per subject.
4 messages
2014/07/31
[#64138] Re: Ruby 2.1.2 (and 2.1.1 and probably others) assumes a libffi with 3 version numbers in extconf.rb
— "Jeffrey 'jf' Lim" <jfs.world@...>
2014/07/31
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim <[email protected]>
[ruby-core:63645] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #10026] Segmentation fault
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2014-07-10 23:52:14 UTC
List:
ruby-core #63645
[email protected] wrote: > Here is the Other runtime information > > https://gist.github.com/maletor/df43091aca5e9b7ee534 URL seems invalid. > -- C level backtrace information ------------------------------------------- > /home/ubuntu/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.1.2/bin/../lib/libruby.so.2.1(+0x1b1495) [0x7ff465c8b495] vm_dump.c:685 > /home/ubuntu/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.1.2/bin/../lib/libruby.so.2.1(+0x707dc) [0x7ff465b4a7dc] error.c:307 > /home/ubuntu/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.1.2/bin/../lib/libruby.so.2.1(rb_bug+0xb7) [0x7ff465b4bc57] error.c:334 > /home/ubuntu/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.1.2/bin/../lib/libruby.so.2.1(+0x138a36) [0x7ff465c12a36] signal.c:704 > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x364a0) [0x7ff4657504a0] > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(malloc_usable_size+0x7) [0x7ff46579ea37] Are you using LD_PRELOAD with an alternative malloc implementation which does not provide malloc_usable_size? That said, I'm not a big fan of Ruby calling malloc_usable_size because it is fragile and makes it harder to switch mallocs.