[#12073] Re: Ruby is much slower on linux when compiled with --enable-pthread? — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

9 messages 2007/09/04

[#12085] New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — David Flanagan <david@...>

Four new methods have been added to Array the Ruby 1.9 trunk. I've got

81 messages 2007/09/06
[#18036] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/07/31

Restarting this thread because I missed it the first time around and

[#18037] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/07/31

Hi,

[#18038] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.brown@...> 2008/08/01

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#18046] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...> 2008/08/01

Gregory Brown wrote:

[#18048] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/08/01

Michael Neumann wrote:

[#18051] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/08/01

Hi --

[#18053] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — "Wilson Bilkovich" <wilsonb@...> 2008/08/01

On 8/1/08, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#18074] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/08/01

Wilson Bilkovich wrote:

[#18080] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/08/02

Hi,

[#18097] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — "Pit Capitain" <pit.capitain@...> 2008/08/03

2008/8/2 Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>:

[#18040] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/08/01

On Jul 31, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#18056] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Thomas Enebo <Thomas.Enebo@...> 2008/08/01

Jim Weirich wrote:

[#18059] Re: New array methods cycle, choice, shuffle (plus bug in cycle) — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/08/01

On Aug 1, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Thomas Enebo wrote:

[#12096] Next 1.8.6 on Sept. 22 — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hi all.

28 messages 2007/09/09

[#12201] how about actors implemented in ruby-core itself — hemant <gethemant@...>

Hi,

12 messages 2007/09/20

[#12248] arbitrary Unicode characters in identifiers? — David Flanagan <david@...>

12 messages 2007/09/26

[#12284] gc.c -- possible logic error? — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>

I've been looking at Tom Copeland's memory allocation problem:

36 messages 2007/09/28
[#12329] Re: gc.c -- possible logic error? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2007/10/01

In article <Pine.GSO.4.64.0709281302390.26570@brains.eng.cse.dmu.ac.uk>,

[#12305] Will 1.8.6 remain compiled with VC6? — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...>

Hello Core developers.

29 messages 2007/09/30
[#12306] Re: Will 1.8.6 remain compiled with VC6? — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/09/30

On 9/30/07, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: gc.c -- possible logic error?

From: Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
Date: 2007-09-28 17:46:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #12287
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: gc.c -- possible logic error?"
>     on Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:57:22 +0900, Hugh Sasse <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> |OK, but heaps_used should never get to be negative, should it?. True, I
> |can't see anywhere in gc.c where it could end up less than 0.
> |However, why is it declared to be of type int, instead of unsigned
> |int?  This is the flaw I'm seeing in the logic.  I'm wondering if
> |heaps_length and heap_slots.limit should also be unsigned as well?
> |I can't see when they'd need to be negative.
> 
> It's not uncommon among C programs to use signed int for positive only
> values, if INT_MAX (2147483647) is big enough, and I think it is, for
> this case.

OK, though with machines having memory at about 3 GB these days, 
I can see that changing. 
> 
> I don't think the patch will solve the leak problem, but if it would,
> I'd love to merge the fix in.

OK, I'll give this a try and let you know what happens.  Thank you.
> 
> 							matz.
> 
> 
        Hugh
> 


In This Thread