[#11890] Ruby and Solaris door library — "Hiro Asari" <asari.ruby@...>

Hi, there. This is my first patch against ruby. I think I followed

19 messages 2007/08/13
[#11892] Re: Ruby and Solaris door library — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/08/14

Hiro Asari wrote:

[#11899] pack/unpack 64bit Integers — Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@...>

Hi,

13 messages 2007/08/14
[#11903] Re: pack/unpack 64bit Integers — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2007/08/15

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:50:01AM +0900, Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#11948] Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — David Flanagan <david@...>

I just noticed that my ruby1.9 build of August 17th includes a Fiber

22 messages 2007/08/22
[#11949] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/08/22

David Flanagan wrote:

[#11950] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@...> 2007/08/22

On 8/22/07, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:

[#11952] Re: Fibers in Ruby 1.9? — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/08/22

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:50:12 +0900, "Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:

[#11988] String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — "Vincent Isambart" <vincent.isambart@...>

I saw that Matz just merged his M17N implementation in the trunk.

17 messages 2007/08/25
[#11991] Re: String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — "Michael Neumann" <mneumann@...> 2007/08/25

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:54:20 +0200, Yukihiro Matsumoto

[#11992] Re: String#length not working properly in Ruby 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/08/25

Hi,

[#12042] Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes? — David Flanagan <david@...>

This message contains queries that probably only Matz can answer:

16 messages 2007/08/31
[#12043] Re: Encodings of string literals; explicit codepoint escapes? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/08/31

Hi,

Re: continuations in Ruby 1.9?

From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2007-08-07 14:18:18 UTC
List: ruby-core #11858
Chad Fowler wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Koichi Sasada <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Brian Mitchell wrote:
>>> Right now callcc seems to have a _large_ negative performance gap in
>>> regard to the 1.8 implementation (tested on OS X, I'll try another OS
>>> when I get a chance) so I am not sure I would use them in their
>>> current state. Are there plans to address performance (or am I the
>>> only one getting this problem)?
>> Do you have any concrete data?
>>
>> BTW I think Ruby's continuation has lack of important features.
>>
>>
> 
> Can you elaborate on this, Koichi?
> 
> Thanks,
> Chad
> 
> 

Can someone post test cases or benchmarks for call/cc? I'm cranking up
my Ruby profiling test bed this month and should have everything
functioning in the next day or so. So far I have only BFTS, the tests
and benchmarks in the Ruby 1.9 SVN repository and my own Matrix benchmark.

Some details: Gentoo Linux, 2.6.22 kernel, gcc 4.1.2 (4.2.0 breaks a lot
of other stuff -- it seems to be fine on Ruby), Athlon64 X2. I've also
got the AMD CodeAnalyst tool set but I don't know if it's functioning yet.

In This Thread