[#25936] [Bug:1.9] [rubygems] $LOAD_PATH includes bin directory — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>

Hi,

10 messages 2009/10/05

[#25943] Disabling tainting — Tony Arcieri <tony@...>

Would it make sense to have a flag passed to the interpreter on startup that

16 messages 2009/10/05

[#26028] [Bug #2189] Math.atanh(1) & Math.atanh(-1) should not raise an error — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Bug #2189: Math.atanh(1) & Math.atanh(-1) should not raise an error

14 messages 2009/10/10

[#26222] [Bug #2250] IO::for_fd() objects' finalization dangerously closes underlying fds — Mike Pomraning <redmine@...>

Bug #2250: IO::for_fd() objects' finalization dangerously closes underlying fds

11 messages 2009/10/22

[#26244] [Bug #2258] Kernel#require inside rb_require() inside rb_protect() inside SysV context fails — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Bug #2258: Kernel#require inside rb_require() inside rb_protect() inside SysV context fails

24 messages 2009/10/22

[#26361] [Feature #2294] [PATCH] ruby_bind_stack() to embed Ruby in coroutine — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #2294: [PATCH] ruby_bind_stack() to embed Ruby in coroutine

42 messages 2009/10/27

[#26371] [Bug #2295] segmentation faults — tomer doron <redmine@...>

Bug #2295: segmentation faults

16 messages 2009/10/27

[ruby-core:25953] Re: Disabling tainting

From: "Martin J. Dst" <duerst@...>
Date: 2009-10-06 02:56:48 UTC
List: ruby-core #25953
Switching off taint checking at runtime doesn't make sense, because it 
adds an additional check ("do we have to do taint checking") in case 
it's on, and keeps the same number of checks (one check; "do we have to 
do taint checking" instead of "is the object tainted") if switched off.

The way to gain some (probably not much) time would be a compile-time 
switch. I can't speak for Matz or Nobu, but I guess if you submit a 
patch, and give some actual numbers of time saved, there's some chance 
it would be accepted.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/10/06 3:45, Kornelius Kalnbach wrote:
> Tony Arcieri wrote:
>> The goal would be to eliminate the performance losses caused by this
>> esoteric and not particularly useful feature.
> do you have benchmarks that show how much performance is lost by taint
> checking? I'd assume it's not even measurable.
>
> [murphy]
>
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

In This Thread