[ruby-core:31230] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9

The sweep bug is related to something being sweeped and not having a type.
Can it be related to this: http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3416 ?

I've been trying to trace it down but unfortunately I don't have Windows 7
running, so I'm lost in the GC's code.

I agree with Evan, this bug is not related with his patch but instead
uncovered a bug elsewhere.


---
http://goncalossilva.com

im: [e-mail]
twitter: http://twitter.com/goncalossilva


On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 22:07, Evan Phoenix <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Jul 12, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Roger Pack wrote:
>
> >> Roger, could you re-try to build from scratch?  Could you apply
> >> the test to ruby_1_9_2 and check it is reproducible?
> >
> > Ok rebuild it from scratch.
> > After installing these gems:
> > $ gem install redcar rdoc-data win32console rails
> >
> > then the bug resurfaces.
> >
> > For the adventurous:
> > http://myfavoritepal.com:/incoming/trunk3_installed.7z
> > contains the binary that fails.
>
> I don't have access to a windows 7 machine to test this, nor do I have any
> knowledge of windows 7 debugging.
>
> I've looked back over your original backtrace. Assuming your still seeing
> the same issue (gc_sweep(), unknown data), I'm guessing that my patch is not
> the core cause of the issue, but is rather just running some code path that
> causes a GC bug.
>
> If this is the case, then the GC bug exists already and needs to be fixed
> whether or not my patch is applied.
>
> If this is considered a show stopper for 1.9.2, then it's the GC bug that
> is a show stopper, not my patch. Not applying my patch because of the GC bug
> solves nothing, but the GC bug will still exist and users will hit it some
> other way.
>
> I currently do not have the knowledge to track down the GC bug, but I hope
> that someone on ruby-core does and can assist.
>
>  - Evan Phoenix
>
> >
> > It's only on one machine though....maybe somebody else with windows 7
> > could try it out and see if it fails?  I haven't gotten it to fail on
> > Linux or XP.
> >
> > I'll try with 1_9_2 next.
> >
> > -r
> >
> >
>
>
>