[#42] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...>

32 messages 2002/05/25
[#43] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/26

Hi,

[#45] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#46] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/26

Hi,

[#47] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#48] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "t" == ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:

[#49] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#50] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#51] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#52] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#53] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#54] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#55] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#56] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#57] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/28

Hi,

[#65] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/28

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#84] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/29

Hi,

[#92] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/29

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#67] The warns-a-thon continues... — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>

I'm feeling left out in this race to clobber warnings!!! Attached are

19 messages 2002/05/28

[#104] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

29 messages 2002/05/30
[#105] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/30

Hi,

[#125] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/04

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#126] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/04

Hi,

[#127] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/04

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#130] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/04

Hi,

[#132] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/05

Hi,

[#134] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/05

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops

From: nobu.nokada@...
Date: 2002-05-31 11:30:20 UTC
List: ruby-core #107
Hi,

At Fri, 31 May 2002 18:48:28 +0900,
ts wrote:
>  Well, the other possibility is that PUSH_VARS() always push a place holder
>  (except when it's called from rb_yield_0()).
> 
>  This will make new variables in #eval and "#{}" always dynamic, and the
>  performance problem is only in this case (ruby can compile only once
>  "#{}") 

I'm thinking it must be, no other way to solve [ruby-core:00100].

-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread