[#13161] hacking on the "heap" implementation in gc.c — Lloyd Hilaiel <lloyd@...>

Hi all,

16 messages 2007/11/01

[#13182] Thinking of dropping YAML from 1.8 — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello all.

14 messages 2007/11/03

[#13315] primary encoding and source encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>

I've got a couple of questions about the handling of primary encoding.

29 messages 2007/11/08
[#13331] Re: primary encoding and source encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/09

Hi,

[#13368] method names in 1.9 — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

61 messages 2007/11/10
[#13369] Re: method names in 1.9 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/10

Hi,

[#13388] Re: method names in 1.9 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/11/11

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#13403] Re: method names in 1.9 — "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...> 2007/11/11

On 11/11/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:

[#13410] Re: method names in 1.9 — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/11/11

Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#13413] Re: method names in 1.9 — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2007/11/11

David Flanagan wrote:

[#13423] Re: method names in 1.9 — Jordi <mumismo@...> 2007/11/12

Summing it up:

[#13386] Re: method names in 1.9 — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/11

[#13391] Re: method names in 1.9 — Matthew Boeh <mboeh@...> 2007/11/11

On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:50:18PM +0900, Trans wrote:

[#13457] mingw rename — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...>

Currently for different windows' builds, the names for RUBY_PLATFORM

13 messages 2007/11/13

[#13485] Proposal: Array#walker — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Good morning all together!

23 messages 2007/11/14
[#13486] Re: Proposal: Array#walker — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/11/14

A nicer version may be...

[#13488] Re: Proposal: Array#walker — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/14

[#13495] Re: Proposal: Array#walker — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/14

[#13498] state of threads in 1.9 — Jordi <mumismo@...>

Are Threads mapped to threads on the underlying operating system in

30 messages 2007/11/14
[#13519] Re: state of threads in 1.9 — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...> 2007/11/14

[#13526] Re: state of threads in 1.9 — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2007/11/14

On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:18 , Bill Kelly wrote:

[#13528] test/unit and miniunit — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

When is the 1.9 freeze?

17 messages 2007/11/14

[#13564] Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Good evening all together!

53 messages 2007/11/15
[#13575] Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/11/15

On Nov 15, 2007 8:14 PM, Wolfgang N=E1dasi-Donner <ed.odanow@wonado.de> wro=

[#13578] Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc. — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...> 2007/11/16

Nikolai Weibull schrieb:

[#13598] wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/11/16

Hi --

[#13605] Re: wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — Trans <transfire@...> 2007/11/16

[#13612] Re: wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/11/16

Hi --

[#13624] Re: wondering about #tap (was: Re: Thoughts about Array#compact!, Array#flatten!, Array#reject!, String#strip!, String#capitalize!, String#gsub!, etc.) — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/11/16

On Nov 16, 2007 12:40 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#13632] Re: wondering about #tap — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/11/16

David A. Black wrote:

[#13634] Re: wondering about #tap — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2007/11/16

Hi --

[#13636] Re: wondering about #tap — "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...> 2007/11/16

On Nov 16, 2007 12:40 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#13637] Re: wondering about #tap — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/11/16

Rick DeNatale wrote:

[#13640] Re: wondering about #tap — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...> 2007/11/16

murphy schrieb:

[#13614] Suggestion for native thread tests — "Eust痃uio Rangel" <eustaquiorangel@...>

Hi!

12 messages 2007/11/16

[#13685] Problems with \M-x in utf-8 encoded strings — Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner <ed.odanow@...>

Hi!

11 messages 2007/11/18

[#13741] retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

In 1.8, I could write:

46 messages 2007/11/23
[#13742] Re: retry semantics changed — "Brian Mitchell" <binary42@...> 2007/11/23

On Nov 23, 2007 12:06 PM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:

[#13743] Re: retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/11/23

[#13746] Re: retry semantics changed — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/23

Hi,

[#13747] Re: retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/11/23

[#13748] Re: retry semantics changed — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/11/23

Hi,

[#13749] Re: retry semantics changed — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2007/11/23

Re: send can't call protected methods, but invoke_method can

From: David Flanagan <david@...>
Date: 2007-11-07 23:24:45 UTC
List: ruby-core #13277
Nobu,

This patch and the previous one for invoke_method fix the two problems I 
was seeing.  Are you going to be checking them in?

	David

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> At Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:42:34 +0900,
> David Flanagan wrote in [ruby-core:13254]:
>> With the current builds I can't call a protected method with send, but I 
>> can with invoke_method.  This seems like a bug to me, but I don't 
>> understand the NOEX_ scope bits, so I don't know how to track it down.
> 
> HTH.
> 
> 
> Index: eval.c
> ===================================================================
> --- eval.c	(revision 13827)
> +++ eval.c	(working copy)
> @@ -1356,5 +1356,5 @@ method_missing(VALUE obj, ID id, int arg
>  
>  static VALUE
> -rb_call(VALUE klass, VALUE recv, ID mid, int argc, const VALUE *argv, int scope)
> +rb_call0(VALUE klass, VALUE recv, ID mid, int argc, const VALUE *argv, int scope, VALUE self)
>  {
>      NODE *body, *method;
> @@ -1410,6 +1410,5 @@ rb_call(VALUE klass, VALUE recv, ID mid,
>  		}
>  		
> -		if (!rb_obj_is_kind_of(rb_frame_self(),
> -				       rb_class_real(defined_class))) {
> +		if (!rb_obj_is_kind_of(self, rb_class_real(defined_class))) {
>  		    return method_missing(recv, mid, argc, argv, NOEX_PROTECTED);
>  		}
> @@ -1443,4 +1442,10 @@ rb_call(VALUE klass, VALUE recv, ID mid,
>  }
>  
> +static VALUE
> +rb_call(VALUE klass, VALUE recv, ID mid, int argc, const VALUE *argv, int scope)
> +{
> +    return rb_call0(klass, recv, mid, argc, argv, scope, rb_frame_self());
> +}
> +
>  VALUE
>  rb_apply(VALUE recv, ID mid, VALUE args)
> @@ -1459,4 +1464,5 @@ send_internal(int argc, VALUE *argv, VAL
>  {
>      VALUE vid;
> +    VALUE self = RUBY_VM_PREVIOUS_CONTROL_FRAME(GET_THREAD()->cfp)->self;
>  
>      if (argc == 0) {
> @@ -1466,5 +1472,5 @@ send_internal(int argc, VALUE *argv, VAL
>      vid = *argv++; argc--;
>      PASS_PASSED_BLOCK();
> -    return rb_call(CLASS_OF(recv), recv, rb_to_id(vid), argc, argv, scope);
> +    return rb_call0(CLASS_OF(recv), recv, rb_to_id(vid), argc, argv, scope, self);
>  }
>  
> Index: insnhelper.ci
> ===================================================================
> --- insnhelper.ci	(revision 13827)
> +++ insnhelper.ci	(working copy)
> @@ -539,5 +539,5 @@ vm_call_method(rb_thread_t *th, rb_contr
>  	    }
>  	    else if (((mn->nd_noex & NOEX_MASK) & NOEX_PROTECTED) &&
> -		     !(flag & VM_CALL_SEND_BANG_BIT)) {
> +		     !(flag & VM_CALL_SEND_BIT)) {
>  		VALUE defined_class = mn->nd_clss;
>  
> 
> 


In This Thread