[#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:90730] [Ruby trunk Bug#15460] Behaviour of String#setbyte changed
From:
eregontp@...
Date:
2018-12-26 11:59:42 UTC
List:
ruby-core #90730
Issue #15460 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). I think it's good to be strict here, i.e., to raise RangeError when `str.setbyte(256)` or higher as that could very well be a bug in the calling code. Negative values also sound buggy in most situations. Why are values higher in HexaPDF? Does it mean multiple bytes need to be written or is it enough to throw away the high bits? I suspect the latter is rarely correct. ---------------------------------------- Bug #15460: Behaviour of String#setbyte changed https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15460#change-75908 * 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>