[#27380] [Bug #2553] Fix pthreads slowness by eliminating unnecessary sigprocmask calls — Dan Peterson <redmine@...>

Bug #2553: Fix pthreads slowness by eliminating unnecessary sigprocmask calls

21 messages 2010/01/03

[#27437] [Feature #2561] 1.8.7 Patch reduces time cost of Rational operations by 50%. — Kurt Stephens <redmine@...>

Feature #2561: 1.8.7 Patch reduces time cost of Rational operations by 50%.

9 messages 2010/01/06

[#27447] [Bug #2564] [patch] re-initialize timer_thread_{lock,cond} after fork — Aliaksey Kandratsenka <redmine@...>

Bug #2564: [patch] re-initialize timer_thread_{lock,cond} after fork

18 messages 2010/01/06

[#27545] [Feature #2594] 1.8.7 Patch: Reduce time spent in gc.c is_pointer_to_heap(). — Kurt Stephens <redmine@...>

Feature #2594: 1.8.7 Patch: Reduce time spent in gc.c is_pointer_to_heap().

8 messages 2010/01/11

[#27635] [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #2619: Proposed method: Process.fork_supported?

45 messages 2010/01/20
[#27643] [Feature #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Luis Lavena <redmine@...> 2010/01/21

Issue #2619 has been updated by Luis Lavena.

[#27678] Re: [Feature #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/22

Hi,

[#27684] Re: [Feature #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2010/01/22

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#27708] Re: [Feature #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/22

Hi,

[#27646] Re: [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2010/01/21

2010/1/21 Hongli Lai <redmine@ruby-lang.org>:

[#27652] Re: [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Hongli Lai <hongli@...99.net> 2010/01/21

On 1/21/10 5:20 AM, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#27653] Re: [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2010/01/21

2010/1/21 Hongli Lai <hongli@plan99.net>:

[#27662] Re: [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Vladimir Sizikov <vsizikov@...> 2010/01/21

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:

[#27698] [Bug #2629] ConditionVariable#wait(mutex, timeout) should return whether the condition was signalled, not the waited time — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #2629: ConditionVariable#wait(mutex, timeout) should return whether the condition was signalled, not the waited time

8 messages 2010/01/22

[#27722] [Feature #2635] Unbundle rdoc — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>

Feature #2635: Unbundle rdoc

14 messages 2010/01/23

[#27757] [Bug #2638] ruby-1.9.1-p37[68] build on aix5.3 with gcc-4.2 failed to run for me because it ignores where libgcc is located. — Joel Soete <redmine@...>

Bug #2638: ruby-1.9.1-p37[68] build on aix5.3 with gcc-4.2 failed to run for me because it ignores where libgcc is located.

10 messages 2010/01/24

[#27778] [Bug #2641] Seg fault running miniruby during ruby build on Haiku — Alexander von Gluck <redmine@...>

Bug #2641: Seg fault running miniruby during ruby build on Haiku

10 messages 2010/01/25

[#27791] [Bug #2644] memory over-allocation with regexp — Greg Hazel <redmine@...>

Bug #2644: memory over-allocation with regexp

12 messages 2010/01/25

[#27794] [Bug #2647] Lack of testing for String#split — Hugh Sasse <redmine@...>

Bug #2647: Lack of testing for String#split

14 messages 2010/01/25

[#27912] [Bug #2669] mkmf find_executable doesn't find .bat files — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #2669: mkmf find_executable doesn't find .bat files

11 messages 2010/01/27

[#27930] [Bug:trunk] some behavior changes of lib/csv.rb between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...>

Hi jeg2, or anyone who knows the implementation of FasterCSV,

15 messages 2010/01/28
[#27931] Re: [Bug:trunk] some behavior changes of lib/csv.rb between 1.8 and 1.9 — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2010/01/28

On Jan 28, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Yusuke ENDOH wrote:

[ruby-core:27695] Re: [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported?

From: Vladimir Sizikov <vsizikov@...>
Date: 2010-01-22 12:55:52 UTC
List: ruby-core #27695
Hi,

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
> 2010/1/22 Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@headius.com>:
>
>> So then in general, the new functionality is useless and should not be
>> used, since even for the C implementation you can't know if a method
>> will fail to invoke successfully. Should an unreliable or useless
>> feature ever be added?
>
> I (and Vladimir) don't say that it always impossible.
>
> There are cases which is possible.

Yes, it seems that there are cases when this is possible. But the
problem is that this is not reliable and "portable" (across platforms
and across different implementations) in general case. So this looks
more like a hint rather than a reliable way to check whether some
method is implemented/functional or not. At the end of the day any
robust code still needs to take care of NotImplementedError and
whatnot.

Personally, I think that changing a public API and introducing this
complexity (and special cases like this *are* an additional
complexity) just to provide some 'hint' is overkill.

I don't think we could do that for JRuby (it will require lots and
lots of changes, ugly special-cases handling for respond_to?, and
still not be 100% reliable), so I just hate to see an incompatibility
where it could have been avoided.

Thanks,
  --Vladimir

In This Thread