[#42] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...>

32 messages 2002/05/25
[#43] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/26

Hi,

[#45] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#46] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/26

Hi,

[#47] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#48] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/26

>>>>> "t" == ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:

[#49] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#50] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#51] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#52] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#53] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#54] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#55] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/27

Hi,

[#56] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/27

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#57] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/28

Hi,

[#65] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/28

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#84] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/29

Hi,

[#92] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/05/29

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#67] The warns-a-thon continues... — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>

I'm feeling left out in this race to clobber warnings!!! Attached are

19 messages 2002/05/28

[#104] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

29 messages 2002/05/30
[#105] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/05/30

Hi,

[#125] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/04

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#126] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/04

Hi,

[#127] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/04

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

[#130] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/04

Hi,

[#132] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — nobu.nokada@... 2002/06/05

Hi,

[#134] Re: possible bug: stack dump with <<-String, #{...} and large loops — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/05

>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

Re: [BUG] thread failure after trap

From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2002-05-16 06:24:52 UTC
List: ruby-core #22
>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

n> I guess the check doesn't need to restore the thread.

 Not understood : ruby must test if some other signal are pending.

n> This patch caused SEGV on signal within trap command.  Maybe
n> since it isn't reentrant?

 yes, not reentrant : perhaps disable all signals when a trap command is
 run ?


Guy Decoux


In This Thread