[#21039] Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...>

Happy new year everyone.

94 messages 2009/01/01
[#21040] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — James Gray <james@...> 2009/01/01

On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21041] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — brabuhr@... 2009/01/01

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

[#21042] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Federico Builes <federico.builes@...> 2009/01/01

brabuhr@gmail.com writes:

[#21049] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2009/01/01

[#21053] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — znmeb@... 2009/01/01

Quoting Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@gmail.com>:

[#21068] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/01/02

Hi,

[#21069] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Florian Gilcher <flo@...> 2009/01/02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#21070] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2009/01/02

T24gRnJpLCBKYW4gMiwgMjAwOSBhdCAxMjoxOCBQTSwgRmxvcmlhbiBHaWxjaGVyIDxmbG9AYW5k

[#21073] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2009/01/02

My opinion:

[#21078] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Eust痃uio Rangel" <eustaquiorangel@...> 2009/01/02

My two cents:

[#21101] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...> 2009/01/03

Eust=E1quio Rangel wrote:

[#21102] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2009/01/03

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 21:40, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:

[#21104] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...> 2009/01/03

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#21106] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Giuseppe Bilotta" <giuseppe.bilotta@...> 2009/01/04

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

[#21114] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...> 2009/01/04

Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

[#21132] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2009/01/05

[#21134] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2009/01/05

Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21080] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2009/01/02

On Jan 1, 2009, at 04:42 AM, Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21083] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2009/01/03

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 00:34, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

[#21089] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2009/01/03

[#21147] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2009/01/05

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 12:48:09PM +0900, Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21160] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2009/01/05

On Jan 2, 2009, at 17:25 PM, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#21165] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2009/01/06

> I think I'm entitled to an opinion on the subject because I am a

[#21097] [Bug #977] caller for all threads patch — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #977: caller for all threads patch

15 messages 2009/01/03
[#23760] Re: [Bug #977] caller for all threads patch — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2009/06/08

I made a patch to Thread#caller(lev=1). It may be more flexible than

[#21244] [Bug #999] SSL & ZIP missing from ruby-1.9.1-preview1-i386-mswin32 — William Mason <redmine@...>

Bug #999: SSL & ZIP missing from ruby-1.9.1-preview1-i386-mswin32

14 messages 2009/01/10

[#21259] Do I need a special build arg to get irb to accept utf characters on OSX — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

I'm seeing very strange behavior at the irb prompt with ruby 1.9.1 =20

10 messages 2009/01/11

[#21310] [Bug #1008] Missing shell version of ruby-1.9 commands (gem, rake, ...) for MinGW installation — Chauk-Mean Proum <redmine@...>

Bug #1008: Missing shell version of ruby-1.9 commands (gem, rake, ...) for MinGW installation

8 messages 2009/01/13

[#21339] [Bug #1010] Ruby-1.9's rake sh doesn't work on Windows (but fix provided) — Chauk-Mean Proum <redmine@...>

Bug #1010: Ruby-1.9's rake sh doesn't work on Windows (but fix provided)

10 messages 2009/01/14

[#21399] Proposal: Module#copy_method — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>

I'd like it to be possible to copy methods from one module to another. The

38 messages 2009/01/18
[#21428] Re: Proposal: Module#copy_method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/01/19

Hi,

[#21550] [Feature #1046] request: ability to run without specifying .rb — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1046: request: ability to run without specifying .rb

13 messages 2009/01/24

[#21552] [Feature #1047] request: getters, setters for the GC — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1047: request: getters, setters for the GC

15 messages 2009/01/24

[#21613] [Bug #1063] in `write': Not enough space - <STDOUT> (Errno::ENOMEM) on Windows XP — Nick Gorbikoff <redmine@...>

Bug #1063: in `write': Not enough space - <STDOUT> (Errno::ENOMEM) on Windows XP

11 messages 2009/01/27

[#21640] [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs — James Gray <redmine@...>

Bug #1068: Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs

12 messages 2009/01/28
[#21642] Re: [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs — Ondrej Bilka <neleai@...> 2009/01/28

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:00:05PM +0100, James Gray wrote:

[#21663] Re: [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2009/01/29

Hi,

[#21701] [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #1081: add File::write() convenience method

34 messages 2009/01/31
[#28450] [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Yusuke Endoh <redmine@...> 2010/03/03

Issue #1081 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.

[#28455] Re: [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/03/04

Hi,

[#28472] Re: [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/03/04

Hi,

[#21702] [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #1082: add Object#singleton_class method

54 messages 2009/01/31
[#27372] [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...> 2010/01/02

Issue #1082 has been updated by Suraj Kurapati.

[#27384] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/04

Hi,

[#27394] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/01/04

Hi,

[#27407] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/01/05

Hi,

[#27409] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/05

Hi,

[#28304] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/02/23

Hi,

[ruby-core:21432] Re: Supporting Thread.critical=with native threads

From: Brent Roman <brent@...>
Date: 2009-01-19 09:28:15 UTC
List: ruby-core #21432
Charlie & Shri,

Ruby 1.9 doesn't support Thread.critical=  However, when I last looked
(about a year ago) it still had a "Giant VM Lock"  to prevent multiple Ruby
threads from running in parallel.  MRI struck this compromise because it
must to be able to run existing 'C' extensions unmodified.   In this
threading environment it is quite easy to add this support for
Thread.critical=.  I'm guessing the decision to delete Thread.critical= was
to open the door for parallel threading in Ruby 2.x sometime in the future.

Ruby 1.9 *does* support Thread.exclusive {} by mapping this onto a global
Mutex.  If you don't care about backward compatibility, then why do you need
to blaze your own trail here? 
Why not do exactly as v1.9 has already done?

The "cross-impl critical= spec" is not supported by any existing
implementation.

Thread.critical is a flag that affects thread scheduling.  It is not a
Mutex.
It commonly gets set when it is already true and cleared when it is already
false.
Both these operations are NOPs in the current implementation!
One doesn't have to get deep into Threading Zen to see that the spec you
have posted will cause most existing code that uses Thread.critical= in any
way 
other than as a means of implementing a simple Mutex to fail. 

The only way to support the existing Thread.critical= behavior in a
meaningful way is in the context of a reduced performance threading model
where only one Ruby thread runs at a time.  If there were another way, I
think v1.9 would have retained it.

You've got two choices, as I see it.  Remove Thread.critical , or maintain
an optional thread scheduling mode with a Giant VM Lock to ensure that only
one thread runs at a time for backward compatibility with v1.8 and before.

Everything you've posted about the "vigorous checkpointing" JRuby does to
support Thread.critical= indicates to me that even this valiant effort fails
to implement Thread.critical in a parallel threading VM.  So, yes, in a
nutshell, "It is better to make a hard break".  Drop support for
Thread.critical= unless you intend to support the threading environment on
which it depends.

- brent

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-ruby-core%3A20999--Supporting-Thread.critical%3Dwith-native-threads-tp21224464p21539447.html
Sent from the ruby-core mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


In This Thread