[#42] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...>

32 messages 2002/05/25
[#43] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/26

Hi,

[#45] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#46] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/26

Hi,

[#47] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#48] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "t" == ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:

[#49] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#50] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#51] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#52] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#53] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#54] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#55] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#56] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#57] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/28

Hi,

[#65] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/28

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#84] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/29

Hi,

[#92] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/29

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#67] The warns-a-thon continues... — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>

I'm feeling left out in this race to clobber warnings!!! Attached are

19 messages 2002/05/28

[#104] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

29 messages 2002/05/30
[#105] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/30

Hi,

[#125] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/04

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#126] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/04

Hi,

[#127] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/04

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#130] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/04

Hi,

[#132] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/05

Hi,

[#134] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/05

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

Re: Useless patch...

From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2002-05-15 05:02:13 UTC
List: ruby-core #13
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Useless patch..."
>     on 02/05/15, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
> 
> |  * I'm not sure whether we don't need size adjustment in
> |    rb_ary_shift() any longer.  Since we have bigger memory these
> |    days, maybe it will be a problem.
> 
> Type.  "it will *not* be a problem".
> 
>                                                         matz.

Are you talking about the code that shrinks an array if the length is
less than a tenth of capacity? Why would you want to get rid of that? I
thought it looked like a good tradeoff.

I'm interested because I have some code in which arrays frequently grow
from 0 to large and back to 0. I don't want the realloc to happen often,
so I manually (in C code) pop elements without changing capa. This seems
to me to be the exception, not the rule. For most uses, the current
behavior seems best. I don't think memory resources will ever exceed
demand...

In This Thread

Prev Next