[#30995] [Bug #3523] win32 exception c0000029 on exit using fibers — B Kelly <redmine@...>

Bug #3523: win32 exception c0000029 on exit using fibers

19 messages 2010/07/02

[#31100] [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Ricardo Panaggio <panaggio.ricardo@...>

Hello,

26 messages 2010/07/07
[#31148] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...> 2010/07/09

> As this it my first patch to Ruby, I don't know where to begin with.

[#31320] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Ricardo Panaggio <panaggio.ricardo@...> 2010/07/16

Sorry for leaving this thread for so long. I've tried to finish the

[#31322] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2010/07/16

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 06:55:35AM +0900, Ricardo Panaggio wrote:

[#31324] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...> 2010/07/17

NB: I am Ricardo's mentor for this project.

[#31331] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...> 2010/07/17

On 17 July 2010 06:00, Caleb Clausen <vikkous@gmail.com> wrote:

[#31332] Re: [rubysoc] Queue C-extension patch to come — Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...> 2010/07/17

On 7/17/10, Benoit Daloze <eregontp@gmail.com> wrote:

[#31138] Why is there no standard way of creating a String from a char *? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>

Hi!

14 messages 2010/07/08
[#31146] Re: Why is there no standard way of creating a String from a char *? — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2010/07/09

(2010/07/09 7:04), Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#31149] Re: Why is there no standard way of creating a String from a char *? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2010/07/09

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 06:20, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#31150] Re: Why is there no standard way of creating a String from a char *? — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2010/07/09

(2010/07/09 18:28), Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#31217] [Bug #3562] regression in respond_to? — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Bug #3562: regression in respond_to?

14 messages 2010/07/12

[#31269] [Bug #3566] memory leak when spawning+joining Threads in a loop — Eric Wong <redmine@...>

Bug #3566: memory leak when spawning+joining Threads in a loop

14 messages 2010/07/13

[#31399] [Backport #3595] Theres no encoding to differentiate a stream of Binary data from an 8-Bit ASCII string — Dreamcat Four <redmine@...>

Backport #3595: Theres no encoding to differentiate a stream of Binary data from an 8-Bit ASCII string

17 messages 2010/07/21

[#31459] [Bug #3607] [trunk/r28731] Gem.path has disappeared? — Ollivier Robert <redmine@...>

Bug #3607: [trunk/r28731] Gem.path has disappeared?

22 messages 2010/07/23

[#31519] [Bug #3622] Net::HTTP does not wait to send request body with Expect: 100-continue — Eric Hodel <redmine@...>

Bug #3622: Net::HTTP does not wait to send request body with Expect: 100-continue

9 messages 2010/07/28

[ruby-core:31403] Re: [Bug #3523][Assigned] win32 exception c0000029 on exit using fibers

From: Bill Kelly <billk@...>
Date: 2010-07-21 12:41:45 UTC
List: ruby-core #31403
Hi,

U.Nakamura wrote:
> 
> But I've found a workaround for you, Bill.
> 
> In definition of ZZZZ::PROTO::RPCMessageDispatcher#rpc_connection_unbind,
> you should use
>     @msg_portmap[MSGPORT_ROOT].call(true, :rpc_unbind)
> instead of
>     rpc_dispatch(MSGPORT_ROOT, MSGPORT_ROOT, :rpc_unbind)
> .

Interesting.

Do we know why it is unsafe to use run_in_fiber specifically during the
unbind callback?

Note that test_em_fiber4f.rb represents an extremely simplified version
of the system, and that normally rpc_dispatch is also frequently called
from another EventMachine callback: receive_data.

So I am wondering if we have a reason to believe that it is *only* the
unbind callback that is unsafe?  And if we should expect the
receive_data callback to be safe for run_in_fiber, unlike unbind?

(Unfortunately, unlike c0000029, I'm not yet able to reproduce the
current memory corruption crash when running tests that exercise the
real system.  So I don't know if this change in test_em_fiber4f.rb
makes a difference in the real system or not, since I can't get the
real system to crash either way, yet.)


Thanks,

Bill


In This Thread