[#44036] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6242][Open] Ruby should support lists — "shugo (Shugo Maeda)" <redmine@...>
20 messages
2012/04/01
[#44084] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6246][Open] 1.9.3-p125 intermittent segfault — "jshow (Jodi Showers)" <jodi@...>
22 messages
2012/04/02
[#44156] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265][Open] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax — "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <rr.rosas@...>
45 messages
2012/04/06
[#44207] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax
— "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
2012/04/09
[#44211] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2012/04/09
Hi,
[#44232] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2012/04/09
(2012/04/09 14:19), Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#44163] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6266][Open] encoding related exception with recent integrated psych — "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>
10 messages
2012/04/06
[#44233] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6274][Open] Float addition incorrect — "swanboy (Michael Swan)" <swanyboy4@...>
3 messages
2012/04/09
[#44303] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6284][Open] Add composition for procs — "pabloh (Pablo Herrero)" <pablodherrero@...>
57 messages
2012/04/12
[#44329] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6287][Open] nested method should only be visible by nesting/enclosing method — "botp (bot pena)" <botpena@...>
4 messages
2012/04/13
[#44349] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Open] new queue / blocking queues — "tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)" <aaron@...>
10 messages
2012/04/13
[#44354] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Assigned] new queue / blocking queues
— "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
2012/04/14
[#44357] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Assigned] new queue / blocking queues
— Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@...>
2012/04/14
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:58:12AM +0900, mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote:
[#44384] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Assigned] new queue / blocking queues
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2012/04/16
Hi,
[#44391] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Assigned] new queue / blocking queues
— Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@...>
2012/04/16
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:25:59PM +0900, SASADA Koichi wrote:
[#44372] Possible merge error of code in Issue 4651 on to Ruby 1.9.3-p125? — "Blythe,Aaron" <ABLYTHE@...>
tl;dr I believe I have uncovered a merge error to ruby 1.9.3-p125 from Issu=
3 messages
2012/04/16
[#44431] [Backport93 - Backport #6314][Open] Backport r35374 and r35375 — "drbrain (Eric Hodel)" <[email protected]>
4 messages
2012/04/18
[#44432] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6315][Open] handler to trace output of each line of code executed — "ankopainting (Anko Painting)" <anko.com+ruby@...>
9 messages
2012/04/18
[#44533] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341][Open] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join — "rudolf (r stu3)" <redmine@...>
24 messages
2012/04/22
[#44564] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— "kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI)" <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/23
[#44573] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
2012/04/24
Hello,
[#44577] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/24
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Yusuke Endoh <[email protected]> wrote:
[#44582] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
2012/04/24
Hello,
[#44596] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/24
(4/24/12 6:55 AM), Yusuke Endoh wrote:
[#44579] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— "naruse (Yui NARUSE)" <naruse@...>
2012/04/24
[#44581] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/24
> kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI) wrote:
[#44540] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6343][Open] Improved Fiber documentation — "andhapp (Anuj Dutta)" <anuj@...>
6 messages
2012/04/23
[#44612] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6354][Open] Remove escape (break/return/redo/next support) from class/module scope — "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <redmine@...>
8 messages
2012/04/25
[#44630] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361][Open] Bitwise string operations — "MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)" <Martin.Bosslet@...>
31 messages
2012/04/26
[#44713] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361] Bitwise string operations
— "MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)" <Martin.Bosslet@...>
2012/04/28
[#44731] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361] Bitwise string operations
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2012/04/28
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM, MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)
[#44759] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361] Bitwise string operations
— Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@...>
2012/04/29
On Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 8:52 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
[#44636] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6364][Open] Segmentation fault happend when running test_cptr.rb — "raylinn@... (ray linn)" <raylinn@...>
9 messages
2012/04/26
[#44667] possible YAML bug in ruby 1.9.3p125? — Young Hyun <youngh@...>
YAML in ruby 1.9.3p125 seems to have a bug reading in YAML from older =
4 messages
2012/04/27
[#44686] [BUG] not a node 0x07 — ronald braswell <rpbraswell@...>
Running ruby 1.8.6 on Solaris 10.
7 messages
2012/04/27
[#44688] Re: [BUG] not a node 0x07
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2012/04/27
2012/4/28 ronald braswell <[email protected]>:
[#44694] Re: [BUG] not a node 0x07
— ronald braswell <rpbraswell@...>
2012/04/27
I have heard reports of this on 1.9.x. Do you know if this problem has
[#44704] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6373][Open] public #self — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>
61 messages
2012/04/27
[#44735] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6373] public #self
— "matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)" <matz@...>
2012/04/28
[#59892] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6373] public #self
— ruby-core@...
2014/01/20
Issue #6373 has been updated by Marc-Andre Lafortune.
[#44743] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6375][Open] Python notation for literal Hash — "alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov)" <redmine@...>
10 messages
2012/04/28
[#44748] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6376][Open] Feature lookup and checking if feature is loaded — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>
13 messages
2012/04/28
[#44832] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6376][Feedback] Feature lookup and checking if feature is loaded
— "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
2012/05/03
[#44835] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #6376][Feedback] Feature lookup and checking if feature is loaded
— Nikolai Weibull <now@...>
2012/05/03
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:02 AM, mame (Yusuke Endoh) <[email protected]> wrote:
[ruby-core:44387] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6288] Change error message for thread block to be less misleading
From:
"rklemme (Robert Klemme)" <shortcutter@...>
Date:
2012-04-16 12:07:09 UTC
List:
ruby-core #44387
Issue #6288 has been updated by rklemme (Robert Klemme). mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote: > Hello, > > 2012/4/14 rklemme (Robert Klemme) <[email protected]>: > > mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote: > >> Is "possible deadlock detected" better? > > > > If I understand properly what the deadlock check does (see also #5258) it merely verifies that there is at least one thread left which could wake up this thread. So I'd rather have something like "No live threads left. Deadlock?", but then again my understanding of the code in question is not too thorough. > > Looks reasonable to me. I'll commit unless there is no objection. Great, thank you! > >> Please elaborate "a more complex scenario" with small example. > > > > $ ruby19 -r thread -e 'q=SizedQueue.new(100);r=Thread.new {until (x=q.deq).nil?; raise "SilentError";end};1000.times {|i| q.enq i};q.enq nil' > > /opt/lib/ruby/1.9.1/thread.rb:301:in `sleep': deadlock detected (fatal) > > from /opt/lib/ruby/1.9.1/thread.rb:301:in `block in push' > > from <internal:prelude>:10:in `synchronize' > > from /opt/lib/ruby/1.9.1/thread.rb:297:in `push' > > from -e:1:in `block in <main>' > > from -e:1:in `times' > > from -e:1:in `<main>' > > > > Basically what happens is that the reader thread silently dies as you can see if you set Thread.abort_on_exception: > > It does not make sense. Did you write the code to wait forever? I am not sure what you mean. The real code was more complex and the exception was thrown from another method - unintentionally of course. This is just a simplified example to illustrate the situation. > If so, you should write "sleep" simply. If not, your code is > actually "deadlocked", in a common sense. There is no deadlock because there are no two threads (or processes) accessing resources in a bad order. I am not aware of any deadlock which can be caused by a single thread only. If you find a definition of deadlock which needs only a single thread / action / process please let us know. "A deadlock is a situation wherein two or more competing actions are each waiting for the other to finish, and thus neither ever does." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock > Why didn't you insist that Thread.abort_on_exception be true by > default? I can't understand why you blame deadlock detection. Well, others have done already before. :-) Also, regardless of abort_on_exception the error message for this particular situation is at least misleading if not plain wrong (according to definition of "deadlock"). The default value of abort_on_exception does not change that fact a bit. I mean, the same would happen with a different default of abort_on_exception and someone setting it explicitly to false. Kind regards robert ---------------------------------------- Bug #6288: Change error message for thread block to be less misleading https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6288#change-25932 Author: rklemme (Robert Klemme) Status: Assigned Priority: Normal Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh) Category: core Target version: ruby -v: ruby 1.9.3p125 (2012-02-16) [i386-cygwin] Test case: 11:50:07 ~$ ruby19 -r thread -e 'q=SizedQueue.new 10;1_000_000.times {|i| p i;q.enq i}' 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 /opt/lib/ruby/1.9.1/thread.rb:301:in `sleep': deadlock detected (fatal) from /opt/lib/ruby/1.9.1/thread.rb:301:in `block in push' from <internal:prelude>:10:in `synchronize' from /opt/lib/ruby/1.9.1/thread.rb:297:in `push' from -e:1:in `block in <main>' from -e:1:in `times' from -e:1:in `<main>' This is not a deadlock, but there is no other thread which could wake up main thread. Deadlock is misleading because in a more complex scenario where I had the error initially it wasn't obvious that the other thread had died and I looked for the wrong error in my code. -- http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/