[#107008] [Ruby master Bug#18465] Make `IO#write` atomic. — "ioquatix (Samuel Williams)" <noreply@...>
Issue #18465 has been reported by ioquatix (Samuel Williams).
16 messages
2022/01/09
[#107150] [Ruby master Feature#18494] [RFC] ENV["RUBY_GC_..."]= changes GC parameters dynamically — "ko1 (Koichi Sasada)" <noreply@...>
Issue #18494 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
4 messages
2022/01/17
[#107170] Re: [Ruby master Feature#18494] [RFC] ENV["RUBY_GC_..."]= changes GC parameters dynamically
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2022/01/17
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18494
[#107302] [Ruby master Bug#18553] Memory leak on compiling method call with kwargs — "ibylich (Ilya Bylich)" <noreply@...>
Issue #18553 has been reported by ibylich (Ilya Bylich).
4 messages
2022/01/27
[#107346] [Ruby master Misc#18557] DevMeeting-2022-02-17 — "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <noreply@...>
Issue #18557 has been reported by mame (Yusuke Endoh).
18 messages
2022/01/29
[ruby-core:107107] [Ruby master Bug#18435] Calling `protected` on ancestor method changes result of `instance_methods(false)`
From:
"jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)" <noreply@...>
Date:
2022-01-14 00:56:28 UTC
List:
ruby-core #107107
Issue #18435 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans). I've pushed a simpler fix that doesn't change the semantics of `method`, but still returns the correct visibility for ZSUPER methods, by storing the correct visibility as a member of struct METHOD: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/5356/commits/8fd730db1d414f61f42cfb75b8e8711347b1d032 It may be worth discussing whether to change the semantics of ZSUPER Method objects (such as who the `owner` should be), but for right now, it's probably best to just fix the bug. ---------------------------------------- Bug #18435: Calling `protected` on ancestor method changes result of `instance_methods(false)` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18435#change-95953 * Author: ufuk (Ufuk Kayserilioglu) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 2.7.5p203 (2021-11-24 revision f69aeb8314) [x86_64-darwin20] * Backport: 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- As documented `instance_methods(false)` works as follows: ```ruby module A def method1() end end class B include A def method2() end end p B.instance_methods(false) #=> [:method2] ``` However, calling `protected` on the method defined by `A`, unexpectedly changes the result of `instance_methods(false)` on `B`, even though the owner of the method is still `A`: ```ruby module A def method1() end end class B include A protected :method1 def method2() end end p B.instance_methods(false) #=> [:method1, :method2] p B.instance_method(:method1).owner #=> A ``` In contrast, calling `private` or `public` on the same method does not cause any changes on the result of `B.instance_methods(false)`. This feels like a bug in the implementation of `instance_methods(false)`, but, if it is by design, it should at least be documented on `Module#instance_methods`. This reproduction script gives the same output all the way from Ruby 2.0 up to Ruby-HEAD: https://wandbox.org/permlink/LqbXMBTYxURRZmDz -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>