[#26488] Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Daniel Cohen <danielc2017@...>

This patch adds a Standard Deviation function to the Math Module. It takes

25 messages 2009/11/02
[#26489] Re: Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/03

Hi,

[#26490] Re: Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Daniel Cohen <danielc2017@...> 2009/11/03

OK,

[#26493] Re: Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/03

Hi,

[#26511] Re: Add Standard Deviation Function to Math Module — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2009/11/03

Hi,

[#26492] HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello,

35 messages 2009/11/03
[#26496] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/03

Hi,

[#26507] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@...> 2009/11/03

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wro=

[#26514] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — "Martin J. Dst" <duerst@...> 2009/11/04

Just a thought: What about implementing this with an option on Hash:new,

[#26522] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2009/11/04

Hi,

[#26555] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/05

Hi,

[#26584] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yugui <yugui@...> 2009/11/07

2009/11/6 Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>:

[#26589] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/11/07

Hi,

[#26593] Re: HashWithIndifferentAccess to core — Lourens Naud<lourens@...> 2009/11/07

Hi,

[#26523] [Bug #2330] Non systematic segmentation fault with autoload rubyspec — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Bug #2330: Non systematic segmentation fault with autoload rubyspec

12 messages 2009/11/04

[#26560] [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>

Feature #2340: Removing YAML/Syck

38 messages 2009/11/06
[#26562] [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...> 2009/11/06

Issue #2340 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.

[#26567] Re: [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2009/11/06

On Nov 6, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Yui NARUSE wrote:

[#26568] Re: [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — Jon <jon.forums@...> 2009/11/06

> > Issue #2340 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.

[#26571] Re: [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2009/11/06

Jon wrote:

[#26574] Re: [Feature #2340] Removing YAML/Syck — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2009/11/06

On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 12:59:25AM +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:

[#26635] [Feature #2348] RBTree Should be Added to the Standard Library — James Gray <redmine@...>

Feature #2348: RBTree Should be Added to the Standard Library

20 messages 2009/11/08
[#28842] [Feature #2348] RBTree Should be Added to the Standard Library — James Gray <redmine@...> 2010/03/21

Issue #2348 has been updated by James Gray.

[#26650] [Feature #2350] Unicode specific functionality on String in 1.9 — Manfred Stienstra <redmine@...>

Feature #2350: Unicode specific functionality on String in 1.9

12 messages 2009/11/09
[#28985] [Feature #2350](Rejected) Unicode specific functionality on String in 1.9 — Yusuke Endoh <redmine@...> 2010/03/25

Issue #2350 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.

[#28993] Re: [Feature #2350](Rejected) Unicode specific functionality on String in 1.9 — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2010/03/25

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 14:45, Yusuke Endoh <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#26704] Maintainer confirmation process done. — "Yugui (Yuki Sonoda)" <yugui@...>

I'm sorry for my closing the maintainer confirmation process so late.

13 messages 2009/11/12

[#26736] [Bug #2365] Matrix: poor handling of coercion errors [patch] — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Bug #2365: Matrix: poor handling of coercion errors [patch]

12 messages 2009/11/14

[#26772] [Bug #2378] Regression in ParseDate.parsedate('nn-nn') — Vladimir Sizikov <redmine@...>

Bug #2378: Regression in ParseDate.parsedate('nn-nn')

10 messages 2009/11/16

[#26774] Ruby constant lookup — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>

Over the past six months or so, I have been working with the new Ruby 1.9

22 messages 2009/11/16
[#26775] Re: Ruby constant lookup — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2009/11/17

Hi,

[#26777] Re: Ruby constant lookup — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...> 2009/11/17

Shugo,

[#26778] Re: Ruby constant lookup — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2009/11/17

Hi,

[#26869] Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) — Kurt Stephens <ks@...>

I have a proof-of-concept patch to MRI that caches #to_s values for

16 messages 2009/11/23
[#26936] Re: Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> 2009/11/29

> =A0It reduces the number of #to_s Strings created during the MRI test sui=

[#26958] Re: Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) [with patch] — Kurt Stephens <ks@...> 2009/11/30

The attached patch add caching of #to_s results to the main immutable

[#26960] Re: Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) [with patch] — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> 2009/11/30

> Yes. =A0The MRI test suite runs at 45 sec with these changes and at 53 se=

[#26963] Re: Caching #to_s for immutables (and a possible future for constant-folding) [with patch] — Kurt Stephens <ks@...> 2009/11/30

I just ran rubyspec against it; ~ 5% time improvement.

[ruby-core:26578] [Backport #2326] 1.8.7 Segmentation fault

From: Kirk Haines <redmine@...>
Date: 2009-11-06 19:10:06 UTC
List: ruby-core #26578
Issue #2326 has been updated by Kirk Haines.


In testing, the case which causes the error can be simplified to:

Time.now while true

In general, this segfault can be triggered by creating, in a tight loop, any object that has a Data_Make_Struct call in it's creation, and that has a free function passed into that call.

What appears to happen is that these objects are deferred when obj_free() is called during the gc_sweep():

      case T_DATA:
        if (DATA_PTR(obj)) {
            if ((long)RANY(obj)->as.data.dfree == -1) {
                RUBY_CRITICAL(free(DATA_PTR(obj)));
            }
            else if (RANY(obj)->as.data.dfree) {
                make_deferred(RANY(obj));
                return 1;
            }
        }

Consequently, they don't get removed from the heap before the heap fills up.  This wouldn't be a problem except that rb_newobj has the following code:

    if (ruby_gc_stress || !freelist) garbage_collect();

    obj = (VALUE)freelist;
    freelist = freelist->as.free.next;


The problem with this check is that it doesn't go far enough.  If freelist points to something, but freelist->as.free.next points to 0, then when the assignment to freelist runs, a segfault occurs.

The simple fix for this is to expand the check:

    if (ruby_gc_stress || !freelist || !freelist->as.free.next) garbage_collect();

This works, and it's the same fix on the 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 versions which are broken.  But is it the best way to fix this?  Feedback is appreciated.


Kirk Haines
----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2326

----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org

In This Thread