[#17055] Set#map! vs. map — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

23 messages 2008/06/03

[#17084] Enumerable::Enumerator#with_memo — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Hi,

36 messages 2008/06/03
[#17168] Re: Enumerable::Enumerator#with_memo — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/06/09

Akinori MUSHA wrote:

[#17173] Re: Enumerable::Enumerator#with_memo — "Jeremy Kemper" <jeremy@...> 2008/06/10

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#17192] Re: Enumerable::Enumerator#with_memo — "Martin DeMello" <martindemello@...> 2008/06/10

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net> wrote:

[#17162] Release Plan: Ruby 1.9.0-2 — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

44 messages 2008/06/09
[#17254] Re: Release Plan: Ruby 1.9.0-2 — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2008/06/15

Hi,

[#17273] Re: Release Plan: Ruby 1.9.0-2 — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2008/06/16

[#17276] Re: Release Plan: Ruby 1.9.0-2 — Kouhei Sutou <kou@...> 2008/06/16

Hi,

[#17312] Re: Release Plan: Ruby 1.9.0-2 — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2008/06/18

[#17346] Re: Release Plan: Ruby 1.9.0-2 — Kouhei Sutou <kou@...> 2008/06/19

Hi,

[#17167] Mail count in Subject — "Dirk Traulsen" <dirk.traulsen@...>

Hi!

20 messages 2008/06/09
[#17169] Re: Mail count in Subject — "Warren Brown" <warrenb@...> 2008/06/09

All,

[#17171] Re: Mail count in Subject — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/06/10

Warren Brown wrote:

[#17327] A plea for a release process — Brian Ford <brixen@...>

Hi all,

15 messages 2008/06/18

[#17377] Re: Ruby 1.9.0/1.8.7/1.8.6/1.8.5 new releases (Security Fix) — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...>

Hi,

12 messages 2008/06/23

[#17393] URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — "Igal Koshevoy" <igal@...>

All currently available versions of MRI Ruby are either vulnerable to

104 messages 2008/06/24
[#17416] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/06/28

Sorry for a late reply but I think I've fixed this issue. Can someone

[#17417] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — Igal Koshevoy <igal@...> 2008/06/28

Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#17419] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/06/28

Igal Koshevoy wrote:

[#17422] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — Igal Koshevoy <igal@...> 2008/06/29

Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#17426] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/06/29

Igal Koshevoy wrote:

[#17438] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — Igal Koshevoy <igal@...> 2008/06/29

Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#17499] We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/07/02

Hello, I think current 1.8.6/1.8.7 is stable than p230/p22, so I decided

[#17504] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...> 2008/07/02

Hi Urabe,

[#17506] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/07/02

Vladimir Sizikov wrote:

[#17521] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/07/03

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#17544] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Igal Koshevoy <igal@...> 2008/07/03

Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#17545] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/07/03

Igal Koshevoy wrote:

[#17806] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...> 2008/07/16

On 02/07/2008, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:

[#17851] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2008/07/19

In article <a5d587fb0807160533r4534fabdg257b4a9523b15f1e@mail.gmail.com>,

[#17852] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Federico Builes <federico.builes@...> 2008/07/19

[#17855] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Jeremy Henty <onepoint@...> 2008/07/19

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 02:18:05PM +0900, Federico Builes wrote:

[#17857] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Federico Builes <federico.builes@...> 2008/07/19

[#17860] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Jeremy Henty <onepoint@...> 2008/07/19

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:43:46AM +0900, Federico Builes wrote:

[#17939] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Kurt Stephens <ks@...> 2008/07/24

When will we see a new 1.8.6 release?

[#17940] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/07/24

Hi,

[#17941] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...> 2008/07/24

Hi,

[#17945] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Jeremy Henty <onepoint@...> 2008/07/24

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 02:04:15AM +0900, Vladimir Sizikov wrote:

[#17946] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Jeremy Henty <onepoint@...> 2008/07/24

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 04:35:43AM +0900, Jeremy Henty wrote:

[#17947] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Federico Builes <federico.builes@...> 2008/07/24

Jeremy,

[#17948] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/07/25

Hi,

[#17953] Re: We'll release 1.8.6/1.8.7 this Friday — "Daniel Luz" <dev@...> 2008/07/25

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>

[#17423] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2008/06/29

In article <48662E99.7030508@pragmaticraft.com>,

[#17424] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — Federico Builes <federico.builes@...> 2008/06/29

[#17429] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — Igal Koshevoy <igal@...> 2008/06/29

Federico Builes wrote:

[#17431] Re: URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...> 2008/06/29

Igal Koshevoy wrote:

[#17427] 1.8 release management — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

43 messages 2008/06/29
[#17455] Re: 1.8 release management — Stephen Bannasch <stephen.bannasch@...> 2008/06/30

Let me describe some simple questions about Ruby 1.8.6 that are not

[#17458] Re: 1.8 release management — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/06/30

For what I know,

[#17547] Re: 1.8 release management — "Wilson Bilkovich" <wilsonb@...> 2008/07/03

On 6/30/08, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#17549] Re: 1.8 release management — Igal Koshevoy <igal@...> 2008/07/03

Wilson Bilkovich wrote:

[#17555] Re: 1.8 release management — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2008/07/03

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Igal Koshevoy <igal@pragmaticraft.com> wrote:

[#17585] Re: 1.8 release management — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/07/04

Luis Lavena wrote:

[#17588] Re: 1.8 release management — Igal Koshevoy <igal@...> 2008/07/04

Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#17589] Re: 1.8 release management — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2008/07/04

Igal Koshevoy wrote:

[#17591] Re: 1.8 release management — Igal Koshevoy <igal@...> 2008/07/04

Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

[#17593] Re: 1.8 release management — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...> 2008/07/04

Hi,

[ruby-core:17345] Understanding the output of Kernel#caller

From: "Wilson Bilkovich" <wilsonb@...>
Date: 2008-06-19 13:46:32 UTC
List: ruby-core #17345
I am trying to understand what Ruby 1.8 outputs when "caller" is invoked.
I am working on making Rubinius produce compatible results, but there
are some scenarios I have not been able to understand.  The one
outlined below looks like a Ruby bug to me.

Can someone confirm or deny that for me?

Here is a test script that shows a medium-complexity call to 'caller':

# cat caller_output.rb
def caller_in_eval
  eval "caller(0)"
end

def method_with_block
  yield
end

method_with_block do
  p caller_in_eval
end

In Ruby 1.8.6, this outputs:
["(eval):1:in `caller_in_eval'",
"caller_output.rb:10:in `eval'",
"caller_output.rb:2:in `caller_in_eval'",
"caller_output.rb:10",
"caller_output.rb:6:in `method_with_block'",
"caller_output.rb:9"]

Going frame by frame:
1)  (eval):1 is fine.. caller(0) shows the current stack frame as well
as the previous, and the current stack frame inside the call to 'eval'
is of course line 1 of the eval 'method body'.

2)  caller_output.rb:10:in eval -- Whoa what is going on here? What
happened to line 2 inside caller_in_eval, the method that invoked
"eval". That is definitely what I expected to see as the second frame.
 Instead, we jump over it to line 10, where "caller_in_eval" was
called.

3) Why are we back on line 2 again? Line 2 surely did not invoke line
10 of this script, but that is what the caller output is claiming.

4) Line 10 again? Seeing frames on line 10 on either side of the line
2 frame makes no sense to me. This doesn't seem to represent the real
execution order at all so far.

5) caller_output.rb:6 -- This seems correct to me.. line 6 is what
yielded to the block, which, on line 10, calls the 'caller_in_eval'
method.

6) caller_output.rb:9 -- Also looks fine.   Line 9 was where the
method with the attached block was called from.


Here is the output I would expect to see from this code:
["(eval):1:in `caller_in_eval'",
"caller_output.rb:2:in `caller_in_eval'",
"caller_output.rb:10",
"caller_output.rb:6:in `method_with_block'",
"caller_output.rb:9"]

Thanks for any help you can provide,
--Wilson.

In This Thread

Prev Next