[#29911] [Bug #3231] Digest Does Not Build — Charlie Savage <redmine@...>

Bug #3231: Digest Does Not Build

19 messages 2010/05/01

[#29920] [Feature #3232] Loops (while/until) should return last statement value if any, like if/unless — Benoit Daloze <redmine@...>

Feature #3232: Loops (while/until) should return last statement value if any, like if/unless

9 messages 2010/05/01

[#29997] years in Time.utc — Xavier Noria <fxn@...>

Does anyone have a precise statement about the years supported by

13 messages 2010/05/04

[#30010] [Bug #3248] extension 'tk' is finding tclConfig.sh and tkConfig.sh incorrectly — Luis Lavena <redmine@...>

Bug #3248: extension 'tk' is finding tclConfig.sh and tkConfig.sh incorrectly

9 messages 2010/05/05

[#30226] [Bug #3288] Segmentation fault - activesupport-3.0.0.beta3/lib/active_support/callbacks.rb:88 — Szymon Jeż <redmine@...>

Bug #3288: Segmentation fault - activesupport-3.0.0.beta3/lib/active_support/callbacks.rb:88

10 messages 2010/05/13

[#30358] tk doesn't startup well in doze — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>

Currently with 1.9.x and tk 8.5,the following occurs

12 messages 2010/05/22

[ruby-core:30227] Re: [Feature #3176] Thread#priority= should actually do something

From: Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...>
Date: 2010-05-13 22:03:03 UTC
List: ruby-core #30227
On 5/13/10, Yusuke Endoh <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Issue #3176 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.
>
> Assigned to set to Koichi Sasada
> Target version set to 1.9.x
>
> Hi, Caleb
>
> Great.  I glanced over your patch.  I think the biggest change is how
> thread waits GVL.  It is quite funny because ko1 recently does the
> same to fix another issue (thread starvation on many core environment).
> (The fix have not been committed yet.)
> I had concerned its performance cost, but if ko1 agrees with it, I
> also agree.

Results of performance experiments should be forthcoming in a day or
so, when I get a chance  to run them. Some preliminary and
unscientific tests have shown no appreciable slowdown.

> However, ko1 seems to still dislike the priority support for some
> reason.  I don't know the precise reason.  He said he would answer to
> this ticket, so please wait for him.

Well, if he has been touching the same areas, our patches are likely
to collide. I'll be happy to fix any conflicts or other problems that
arise. (Or at least try. I may not necessarily understand whatever it
is ko1 is doing.)

> Anyway, thank you for your writing a patch.

Thank you for reviewing it.

> One comment for the patch: not-static functions (like pqueue_*) should
> prefix "rb_" to avoid conflict with symbols of other projects, even if
> they are just for internal.

Ok, easy enough to change.

In This Thread