[#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:26310] Re: Which commit fixed Set#hash (Hash#hash, I assume) between 1.9.1 and 1.9.2?

From: "Shot (Piotr Szotkowski)" <shot@...>
Date: 2009-10-26 05:40:17 UTC
List: ruby-core #26310
Shot (Piotr Szotkowski):

> I mailed this list previously about a MRI bug that happens in 1.9.1 (all
> the way up to current svn for that branch) and is fixed in 1.9.2 – the
> problem is that on my 64-bit Linux system

> Set[2305860601668175887.hash == Set[2305860601668175887].hash

> is false.

The above should obviously be

Set[2305860601668175887].hash == Set[2305860601668175887].hash

> Does anyone knows or remembers which commit might’ve fixed the above?

Does the difference lie in r22308? The commit message says ‘always
return a fixnum value because a return value of rb_hash may be
used as a hash value itself and bignums have no unique VALUE’:
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/repositories/diff/ruby-19?rev=22308

If this is indeed a fix to the above, I’d definitely
vote for backporting this commit to branches/ruby_1_9_1

— Shot
-- 
ruby.about.com thinks ‘trollop’ is an inappropriate
name for a gem? Wait till they meet me in person.
                                   [William Morgan]

Attachments (1)

signature.asc (197 Bytes, application/pgp-signature)

In This Thread