[#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: state of threads in 1.9

From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2007-11-14 19:08:46 UTC
List: ruby-core #13518
 > -----Original Message-----
> From: David Flanagan [mailto:david@davidflanagan.com]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:31 AM
> To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: state of threads in 1.9
>=20
> Jordi wrote:
> > Are Threads mapped to threads on the underlying operating system in
> > 1.9 or still using green threads?
> > If still using green threads, it is so because of a=20
> designing decision=20
> > or it is a limitation of the current implementation?
> >=20
>=20
> As others have responded, Ruby 1.9 uses native threads.  But=20
> you still don't get true concurrency.  The fear is that there=20
> are extensions that are not thread-safe yet.  So even though=20
> native threads are used, only one is allowed to run at a=20
> time.  This means that you won't see increased performance=20
> running a multi-threaded Ruby program on a multi-core CPU,=20
> for example.

Can't we have both native *and* green threads? There are advantages and
disadvantages to both, yes? I know at least one user who says he won't
be able to use Ruby 1.9/2.0 because he's using it on very old hardware
(486's) for Point of Sale software. The native threads will be too
heavy.

Really, the only time that I've needed native thread support is for
extending existing C libraries. I don't see the upside for general
concurrency, since we're not getting multi-core support anyway.

Have I missed something?

Regards,

Dan


This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential =
or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is =
strictly=20
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication =

in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and =
destroy=20
all copies of the communication and any attachments.

In This Thread