[#15701] Ruby 1.9.0-1 snapshot released — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Hi,
[#15704] Proc#curry doesn't work on func which produces func — Lin Jen-Shin <godfat@...>
Proc#curry doesn't work on function which produces function,
Hi,
>>>>> "Y" == Yusuke ENDOH <mame@tsg.ne.jp> writes:
[#15707] Schedule for the 1.8.7 release — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Hi, developers,
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 08:58:00PM +0900, Akinori MUSHA wrote:
Hi,
At Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:16:54 +0900,
At Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:39:45 +0900,
[#15709] capitalize and downcase — Trans <transfire@...>
I've always wondered why String#capitalize downcases the whole string
[#15713] Ruby String hash key overflow when converting to Fixnum. — "Chiyuan Zhang" <pluskid@...>
Hi, all! I've opened a issue at rubyforge:
[#15728] Question on build process - skipping unsupported extensions — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
Hi,
[#15740] Copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — Hongli Lai <hongli@...99.net>
Hi.
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi.
Hongli Lai wrote:
Hi.
Hi,
I believe I managed to close the performance gap to only 6% slower than
Daniel DeLorme wrote:
[#15746] Am I misinterpreting the new keyword arguments to IO.foreach and friends? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I was expecting this to pass lines to the block:
[#15756] embedding Ruby 1.9.0 inside pthread — "Suraj Kurapati" <sunaku@...>
Hello,
Hi,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
Hi,
Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
Hongli Lai wrote:
[#15775] next(n), succ(n) ? — Trans <transfire@...>
Can anyone see any reason against adding an optional parameter to
[#15778] Named captures and regular captures — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
It seems that once you have a named capture in a regular expression,
[#15783] Adding startup and shutdown to Test::Unit — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
Daniel Berger wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 07:52:40AM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:
[#15835] TimeoutError in core, timeouts for ConditionVariable#wait — MenTaLguY <mental@...>
I've been reworking JRuby's stdlib to improve performance and fix
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 12:13 +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
[#15837] Correct procedure for patch review? — Hongli Lai <hongli@...99.net>
Hi.
[#15855] Ruby 1.8.6 trace return line numbers wrong — "Rocky Bernstein" <rocky.bernstein@...>
Consider this program:
[#15860] Webrick directory traversal exploit on UNIX — Jos Backus <jos@...>
DSecRG Advisory #DSECRG-08-026 aka -018 describes a remote directory traversal
[#15871] Sparc architecture optimizations — Thomas Enebo <Thomas.Enebo@...>
Someone at Sun has been looking at Ruby on Sparc:
Thomas Enebo wrote:
Hello Ruby-core,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Prashant Srinivasan wrote:
[#15880] Ruby 1.8.6 binding value after "if" expression evaluation — "Rocky Bernstein" <rocky.bernstein@...>
Here's another trace hook weirdness that I've encountered.
Hello,
Thanks. The output you report matches what I get in 1.8.6 and suggests where
I think I've found why this is happening. The trace hook for NODE_IF is
[#15907] Range#member? semantics seem wrong — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Range#member? has been changed so that it the start and end of the
[#15909] RARRAY_PTR — "Laurent Sansonetti" <laurent.sansonetti@...>
Hi,
[#15917] Ruby 1.9 (trunk) crashes when running RubyGems and Rake — Hongli Lai <hongli@...99.net>
Ruby 1.9 (trunk) seems to crash when running the supplied RubyGems and Rake:
Hi,
Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 06:53:19PM +0900, Hongli Lai wrote:
[#15927] how to create a block with a block parameter in C? — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
This works in Ruby (1.9):
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
[#15933] complex and rational — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Before I start doing the documentation for the PickAxe, could I just
[#15936] Are Depreciated Methods "add_final" & "remove_final" supposed to ACTUALLY WORK? — Charles Thornton <ceo@...>
In Working on IRHG Docs for GC the following
>>>>> "C" == Charles Thornton <ceo@hawthorne-press.com> writes:
ts wrote:
[#15938] Questions on Enumerator#skip_first and Enumerable#first — "Artem Voroztsov" <artem.voroztsov@...>
I asked in ruby-talk, but did not get answer.
On Mar 18, 2008, at 6:20 AM, Artem Voroztsov wrote:
[#15975] Bugs in REXML — "Federico Builes" <federico.builes@...>
Hi,
On Mar 21, 2008, at 17:35, Federico Builes wrote:
[#15980] 1.8.6 memory leak? — "Stephen Sykes" <sdsykes@...>
Hi,
[#15983] Changing the algorithm of String#* — apeiros <apeiros@...>
Hi there
[#15990] Recent changes in Range#step behavior — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...>
Hi,
Hi Dave,
Hi Dave,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
Dave Thomas wrote:
Dave Thomas wrote:
Dave Thomas wrote:
Dave,
This is all a semantic problem. Different people have different
[#16011] New ERb mode — Marc Haisenko <haisenko@...>
Hi folks,
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Marc Haisenko wrote:
ERb already does this:
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Jason Roelofs wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Marc Haisenko <haisenko@comdasys.com> wro=
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Jason Roelofs wrote:
[#16023] some Enumerable methods slower in 1.9 on OS X after revision 15124 — Chris Shea <cmshea@...>
All,
Hi,
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 02:26:51PM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
Hi,
Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
Hi,
[#16057] About the license of gserver.rb being "freeware"? — "XiaoLiang Liu" <liuxlsh@...>
Hello everyone,
[#16088] command_call in parse.y — Adrian Thurston <thurston@...>
Hi,
Re: Copy-on-write friendly garbage collector
Paul Brannan wrote: > If what Matz says is true, that it's 8-10% slower than the current > implementation, isn't that enough of a yellow flag? > > Is it possible to improve performance of the patch? I looked over the > implementation for a little while, but didn't see any obvious > opportunities for improvement. I'd be interested to see profiler output > to see where time is being spent. I've looked for ways to optimize it, but the bitfield implementation already seems to be near-optimal. All the old garbage collector had to do was setting a flag. But this one has to: 1. Call a mark function. 2. Find the heap that the object is on. This operation is O(n), with n = the number of heaps. Though it uses a cache to speed up the average case. 3. Calculate the location in the bitfield. This requires a division (/) and a remainder (%) operation. (1), function call overhead, could be solved with aggressive inlining and aggressive use of macros. The downside is excessive use of macros would make the code very hard to read. (2) could be solved as follows: put an index field in each VALUE object. Then the mark function can find the location of the heap (and thus the bitfield) in O(1) time. But this will make each VALUE object at least 4 bytes bigger (on x86). Is this increase in memory usage acceptable for 8-10% performance gain? I've also thought about ways to make this operation O(1) without an index field. *Maybe* it is possible by ensuring that heap addresses are aligned on some multiple of an integer constant. Then finding the heap from an object would only involve the extraction of a few bits in the object address. But this is highly platform-dependent and I'm not sure whether it is viable to implement this without making the code unmaintainable and unportable. (3): I don't think this can be solved. In any case, all of these operations need at least several pointer dereferences. The old GC only needed 1. And because Windows does not support fork(), the garbage collector doesn't have to use a bit field for marking when compiled on Windows. This could be configured with a macro.