[#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: Thread.abort_on_exception= in Ruby 1.9

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-08-08 21:21:15 UTC
List: ruby-core #11874
Replying to myself with more:

I've just checked out fresh Ruby 1.9 sources from svn and have confirmed 
that this problem still exists in today's code.

Also: if you call join on a thread that exited with an exception, then 
that exception starts propagating again in the calling thread.  In Ruby 
1.8, the backtrace includes the call to join.  In Ruby 1.9, the 
backtrace does not include the call to join.  I think the Ruby 1.8 
behavior is preferable, if it can be implemented in 1.9

	David

David Flanagan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thread.abort_on_exception=true is not working the way I would expect it 
> to in Ruby 1.9 (my build is from 7/24).
> 
> Is this "just a bug" or a "not yet implemented" issue or is it a more 
> fundamental problem exposed by YARV's use of native threads?  That is, 
> should we treate abort_on_exception= as a non-portable method useful 
> only for implementations that use green threads?
> 
> Here's the test code I'm using:
> 
> Thread.abort_on_exception = true
> 
> t = Thread.new {
>   sleep 1
>   raise "boom"
> }
> 
> t.abort_on_exception = true
> 
> sleep 2
> puts "done"
> 
> It goes "boom" in Ruby 1.8:
> 
> $ ruby -v boom.rb
> ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> boom.rb:5: boom (RuntimeError)
>         from boom.rb:3:in `initialize'
>         from boom.rb:3:in `new'
>         from boom.rb:3
> 
> But it prints "done" in Ruby 1.9:
> 
> $ ruby1.9 -v boom.rb
> ruby 1.9.0 (2007-07-24 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> done
> 
> 
> 


In This Thread