[#28687] [Bug #2973] rb_bug - Segmentation fault - error.c:213 — rudolf gavlas <redmine@...>

Bug #2973: rb_bug - Segmentation fault - error.c:213

10 messages 2010/03/16

[#28735] [Bug #2982] Ruby tries to link with both openssl and readline — Lucas Nussbaum <redmine@...>

Bug #2982: Ruby tries to link with both openssl and readline

16 messages 2010/03/18

[#28736] [Bug #2983] Ruby (GPLv2 only) tries to link to with readline (now GPLv3) — Lucas Nussbaum <redmine@...>

Bug #2983: Ruby (GPLv2 only) tries to link to with readline (now GPLv3)

10 messages 2010/03/18

[#28907] [Bug #3000] Open SSL Segfaults — Christian Höltje <redmine@...>

Bug #3000: Open SSL Segfaults

19 messages 2010/03/23

[#28924] [Bug #3005] Ruby core dump - [BUG] rb_sys_fail() - errno == 0 — Sebastian YEPES <redmine@...>

Bug #3005: Ruby core dump - [BUG] rb_sys_fail() - errno == 0

10 messages 2010/03/24

[#28954] [Feature #3010] slow require gems in ruby 1.9.1 — Miao Jiang <redmine@...>

Feature #3010: slow require gems in ruby 1.9.1

15 messages 2010/03/24

[#29179] [Bug #3071] Convert rubygems and rdoc to use psych — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3071: Convert rubygems and rdoc to use psych

10 messages 2010/03/31

[ruby-core:28515] Re: [Feature #905] Add String.new(fixnum) to preallocate large buffer

From: Nikolai Weibull <now@...>
Date: 2010-03-05 17:25:02 UTC
List: ruby-core #28515
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 17:25, Caleb Clausen <vikkous@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/5/10, Yusuke ENDOH <mame@tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
>> 2010/3/5 Kornelius Kalnbach <murphy@rubychan.de>:

>>> How big would the buffer size have to be for this template?
>>>
>>> =C2=A0<p><%=3D link_to @record.name, @record %></p>

>> Yes, it is generally difficult to determine the size.
>>
>> We may be able to estimate it by using domain knowledge in some cases.
>> (e.g., certain page size is empirically known as about 10KB, etc.)
>> But if the expectation is disappointed, it will cause wasteful memory
>> allocation or no speed up.

> Generally, a given template should expand to about the same size every
> time.

I=E2=80=99m getting the feeling thath the only real use case that we=E2=80=
=99ve got
for this so far is ERb.  Wouldn=E2=80=99t it make more sense to change the =
way
ERb (and similar =E2=80=9Cstring concatenators=E2=80=9D) creates its result=
?

In This Thread