[#11073] segfault printing instruction sequence for iterator — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #10527, was opened at 2007-05-02 14:42

14 messages 2007/05/02
[#11142] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10527 ] segfault printing instruction sequence for iterator — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/05/10

Hi,

[#11188] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10527 ] segfault printing instruction sequence for iterator — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2007/05/16

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 04:51:18PM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#11234] Planning to release 1.8.6 errata — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hi all.

17 messages 2007/05/25

two fixes for sync.rb: sync_try_lock, Err.Fail

From: "Dmitry Borodaenko" <angdraug@...>
Date: 2007-05-09 22:25:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #11125
Greetings,

Attached are fixes for sync.rb, both the current stable version and
the version in the SVN trunk.

The fix to sync_try_lock is obvious and straight-forward, the fact
that no one noticed it earlier just goes to show how important it is
to pick meaningful variable names, and kind of proves that no one
really wanted to do deadlock-free two-level synchronization with
sync.rb before [0].

The change to Err.Fail was inspired by [1]. It's not necessary for
Ruby 1.9 version of sync.rb, but in 1.8, I can't see any reason why
you'd want to keep the thread locked when raising an exception that
may or may not be handled outside the class.

[0] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/samizdat/samizdat/lib/samizdat/cache.rb?rev=1.99

[1] http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/2006-October/001752.html

-- 
Dmitry Borodaenko

In This Thread

Prev Next