[#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: "Brian Mitchell" <binary42@...>
Date: 2007-08-07 14:28:02 UTC
List: ruby-core #11859
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?

I did some benchmarking on some machines I have access to. Here is what I get:

$ cat callcc.rb
require 'benchmark'

N = 10_000

result = Benchmark.measure do
  N.times {callcc {|cc| cc}.call(lambda {|*| 42})}
end

puts RUBY_VERSION
puts result

On FreeBSD 6.2 amd64:
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [amd64-freebsd6]
$ ruby callcc.rb
1.8.6
  0.164062   0.007812   0.171875 (  0.178217)
$ ruby19/bin/ruby -v
ruby 1.9.0 (2007-08-07 patchlevel 0) [x86_64-freebsd6.2]
$ ruby19/bin/ruby callcc.rb
1.9.0
 15.226562  12.570312  27.796875 ( 55.368435)

On Mac OS X (10.4.8):
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.5 (2006-08-25) [i686-darwin8.6.2]
$ ruby callcc.rb
1.8.5
  0.180000 0.010000 0.190000 ( 0.193483)
$ bin/ruby -v
ruby 1.9.0 (2007-08-07 patchlevel 0) [i686-darwin8.10.1]
$ bin/ruby callcc.rb
1.9.0
 11.230000   6.340000  17.570000 ( 21.121573)

> BTW I think Ruby's continuation has lack of important features.

I would be interested in hearing more about this. Is this related to
the fibers underlying the current trunk implementation of callcc?

Brian.

In This Thread

Prev Next