[#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:27798] Re: [Bug #2647] Lack of testing for String#split

From: Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
Date: 2010-01-25 13:38:30 UTC
List: ruby-core #27798
Here here! The tests in RubySpec are vastly better than those in MRI,
and I strongly suggest the Ruby core team should be running RubySpec
to test MRI (perhaps in addition to existing tests, since not all
libraries are well covered by RubySpec). That's the bottom line.

As it stands now, MRI seems to be the only implementation *not* using
RubySpec on a daily basis. Doesn't that seem a little odd?

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Vladimir Sizikov <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Issue #2647 has been updated by Vladimir Sizikov.
>
>
> Actually, it would be really nice to put such common/core tests into RubySpec, so that all various Ruby implementations would benefit from it. And since MRI 1.9.2 goal to pass 100% RubySpec as well, that would benefit MRI as well.
>
> In fact, there are quite some tests for String#split in RubySpec already:
> http://github.com/rubyspec/rubyspec/blob/master/core/string/split_spec.rb
>
> If some of your tests provide better coverage in some cases, let me know and we could get them incorporated in RubySpec.
>
> For more details about RubySpec, take a look here: http://rubyspec.org/
> Main repository: http://github.com/rubyspec/rubyspec
> ----------------------------------------
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2647
>
> ----------------------------------------
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org
>
>

In This Thread