[#90399] [Ruby trunk Feature#14813] [PATCH] gc.c: make gc_enter+gc_exit pairs dtrace probes, too — ko1@...
Issue #14813 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
3 messages
2018/12/10
[#90417] [Ruby trunk Bug#15398] TestThread#test_signal_at_join fails on FreeBSD — naruse@...
Issue #15398 has been reported by naruse (Yui NARUSE).
4 messages
2018/12/11
[#90423] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#15398] TestThread#test_signal_at_join fails on FreeBSD
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/12/11
[email protected] wrote:
[#90519] Spoofing warnings for mail from bugs.ruby-lang.org — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
I'm getting a spoofing warning for emails sent from bugs.ruby-lang.org when
4 messages
2018/12/13
[#90522] Re: Spoofing warnings for mail from bugs.ruby-lang.org
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/12/13
Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]> wrote:
[#90533] [Ruby trunk Feature#15413] unmarkable C stack (3rd stack) — normalperson@...
Issue #15413 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
3 messages
2018/12/14
[#90581] [Ruby trunk Bug#15424] Ruby 2.6.0rc1 & 2.6.0rc2 mutex exception — mat999@...
Issue #15424 has been reported by splitice (Mathew Heard).
3 messages
2018/12/17
[#90595] [Ruby trunk Bug#15430] test_fork_while_parent_locked is failing status on Ruby CI — hsbt@...
Issue #15430 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
3 messages
2018/12/18
[#90614] [Ruby trunk Bug#15430][Assigned] test_fork_while_parent_locked is failing status on Ruby CI — hsbt@...
Issue #15430 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
4 messages
2018/12/19
[#90630] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#15430][Assigned] test_fork_while_parent_locked is failing status on Ruby CI
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/12/20
> It still exists. https://rubyci.org/logs/rubyci.s3.amazonaws.com/centos7/ruby-trunk/log/20181218T230003Z.fail.html.gz
[#90820] Re: [ruby-cvs:73697] k0kubun:r66593 (trunk): accept_nonblock_spec.rb: skip spurious failure — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
3 messages
2018/12/30
[ruby-core:90723] [Ruby trunk Bug#15460] Behaviour of String#setbyte changed
From:
shyouhei@...
Date:
2018-12-26 01:44:53 UTC
List:
ruby-core #90723
Issue #15460 has been updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe).
We may want to define the behaviour of these methods without introducing fixnum / bignum distinction. One possible way is:
```patch
Index: io.c
===================================================================
--- io.c (revision 66566)
+++ io.c (working copy)
@@ -4259,8 +4259,8 @@ rb_io_ungetbyte(VALUE io, VALUE b)
GetOpenFile(io, fptr);
rb_io_check_byte_readable(fptr);
if (NIL_P(b)) return Qnil;
- if (FIXNUM_P(b)) {
- int i = FIX2INT(b);
+ if (RB_TYPE_P(b, T_FIXNUM) || RB_TYPE_P(b, T_BIGNUM)) {
+ int i = NUM2INT(rb_int_modulo(b, INT2FIX(256)));
if (0 <= i && i <= UCHAR_MAX) {
unsigned char cc = i & 0xFF;
b = rb_str_new((const char *)&cc, 1);
Index: string.c
===================================================================
--- string.c (revision 66566)
+++ string.c (working copy)
@@ -5411,7 +5411,7 @@ static VALUE
rb_str_setbyte(VALUE str, VALUE index, VALUE value)
{
long pos = NUM2LONG(index);
- int byte = NUM2INT(value);
+ int byte = NUM2INT(rb_int_modulo(value, INT2FIX(256)));
long len = RSTRING_LEN(str);
char *head, *left = 0;
unsigned char *ptr;
```
----------------------------------------
Bug #15460: Behaviour of String#setbyte changed
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15460#change-75900
* Author: gettalong (Thomas Leitner)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* Target version:
* ruby -v: ruby 2.6.0p0 (2018-12-25 revision 66547) [x86_64-linux]
* Backport: 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
I just installed Ruby 2.6.0 for benchmarking reasons and found that the change [string.c: setbyte silently ignores upper bits](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby-trunk/repository/revisions/65804) broke my library/application HexaPDF.
Before using String#setbyte I tested how it would respond to values lower than 0 or greater than 255 and found that it automatically performed the needed modulo 256 operation (at least up to Ruby 2.5.3). Therefore I left out the explicit modulo operation for performance reasons.
Would it make sense to change the String#setbyte implementation to perform the modulo operation? This would restore compatibility with prior Ruby versions and may be what people would expect.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>