[#11073] segfault printing instruction sequence for iterator — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #10527, was opened at 2007-05-02 14:42
Hi,
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 04:51:18PM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
This seems to make valgrind much happier.
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:14:35PM +0900, Paul Brannan wrote:
Hi,
Now 'a' shows up twice in the local table:
Hi,
[#11082] Understanding code: Kernel#require and blocks. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
I'm trying to debug a Rails application which complains about an
On 5/4/07, Hugh Sasse <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007, George wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:18:19PM +0900, Hugh Sasse wrote:
[#11108] pattern for implementation-private constants? — David Flanagan <david@...>
Hi,
I believe there isn't a way, but I don't think it's really necessary. Just
[#11127] Bugs that can be closed — "Jano Svitok" <jan.svitok@...>
I propose closing these bugs as invalid:
[#11145] Rational comparison to 0 fails when denominator is != 1 — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #10739, was opened at 2007-05-10 22:06
Hi,
[#11169] Allow back reference with nest level in Oniguruma for Ruby again — =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Wolfgang_N=E1dasi-Donner?= <wonado@...>
Remark: I posted this text in comp.lang.ruby first, but Matz told me,
Does it make sense or is it required to write this as a RCR?
[#11176] FileUtils.rm_rf misfeature? — johan556@...
Hi!
[#11210] Pathname ascend and descend inclusive parameter — TRANS <transfire@...>
I would like to suggest that Pathname#ascend and Pathname#descend
[#11234] Planning to release 1.8.6 errata — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
Hi all.
On 25/05/07, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#11252] Init_stack and ruby_init_stack fail to reinit stack (threads problem?) — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #11134, was opened at 2007-05-25 12:14
Hi,
Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
[#11255] ruby_1_8_6 build problem (make install-doc) — johan556@...
Hi!
[#11271] providing better support through rubyforge tracker categories — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
I'm going to make more categories for the trackers (bugs and patches)
[#11367] BUG: next in lambda: 1.8.6 differs from 1.8.4 and 1.9.0 — David Flanagan <david@...>
A toplevel next statement in a lambda does not return a value in 1.8.6,
[#11368] $2000 USD Reward for help fixing Segmentation Fault in GC — Brent Roman <brent@...>
Hi Brent,
Re: question about frame_unique
On 5/1/07, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote: > > I was reading the source code for ruby 1.8.6, and a thought occurrred to > me. Consider: > > - Assume we're running on a 32-bit system that has a limit of 2**32-1 > for unsigned long. > - frame_unique starts at 0. Assume some amount of work has been done > and it reaches some number, say 20. > - The script makes 2**32-1 method invocations and pushes and pops > 2**32-1 frames. > - frame_unique is incremented 2**32-1 times. Its value should now be > 19. > - On the next method invocation, when the frame is pushed, frame_unique > will be incremented to 20, and the next frame's uniq value will be the > same as the previous frame's. Ruby can now no longer distinguish > between the two frames, even though they are distinct frames. > > I don't know what the implications are of this, so I don't have a test > case. It's seems though that in a very long running ruby script that > this could be a real problem. I don't see any simple way around it, > though. > > A similar problem exists with block_unique. > > Paul the question is: what does this mean for long running applications in ruby?