[#3113] Problem in RSS library, or problem in my blog :) — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I've been trying to use the new RSS library to parse a number of
7 messages
2004/07/01
[#3136] Wrong rdoc formatting in {array,pack}.c — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
7 messages
2004/07/05
[#3162] Re: [doc-patch] Wrong rdoc formatting in {array,pack}.c
— "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
2004/07/09
Hello.
[#3170] Another rdoc formatting error in array.c
— Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
2004/07/10
[#3172] Re: [doc-patch] Another rdoc formatting error in array.c
— "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
2004/07/12
Hello.
[#3141] rexml/validation/validationexception is missing. — nobu.nokada@...
Hi,
5 messages
2004/07/06
[#3154] Nonblocking socket connect - Win32 - 181 — "Jean-Francois Nadeau" <jean-francois.nadeau@...>
Hi,
4 messages
2004/07/08
[#3167] Inconsistent "call-seq" usage etc. — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
7 messages
2004/07/09
[#3168] Re: [doc] Inconsistent "call-seq" usage etc.
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/07/09
[#3171] binding a URL to a label in RDoc — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Hello,
6 messages
2004/07/12
[#3199] Trying to understand \G — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I'm being silly again, but I can't get \G to work with String.index. If
12 messages
2004/07/16
[#3213] Typo and grammar/style fixes for ext/win32ole/win32ole.c — Jos Backus <jos@...>
The attached patch attempts to create a more consistent style for error
4 messages
2004/07/19
[#3216] Re: Incident Analysis of the intrusion on helium.ruby-lang.org May 2004 — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Hi,
6 messages
2004/07/21
[#3228] Core support for Gems, and namespace — "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
Hi all,
21 messages
2004/07/27
[#3229] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Dave Thomas <dave@...>
2004/07/27
[#3232] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
2004/07/27
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#3233] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/07/27
On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 12:48:07 AM, Luke wrote:
[#3235] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
2004/07/27
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
[#3230] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2004/07/27
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:39:08 +0900, Luke A. Kanies <luke@madstop.com> wrote:
[#3234] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— "Luke A. Kanies" <luke@...>
2004/07/27
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Austin Ziegler wrote:
[#3238] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2004/07/27
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:14:29 +0900, Luke A. Kanies <luke@madstop.com> wrote:
[#3243] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
2004/07/28
On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 3:23:46 AM, Austin wrote:
[#3248] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2004/07/28
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:29:53 +0900, Gavin Sinclair
[#3249] Re: Core support for Gems, and namespace
— Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>
2004/07/28
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:29:53AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
Re: cgi.rb possible memory leak
From:
matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date:
2004-07-28 10:11:10 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3247
Hi,
In message "cgi.rb possible memory leak"
on 04/07/28, Kent Sibilev <ksibilev@bellsouth.net> writes:
|Recently I've noticed that the memory usage of our Ruby processes goes
|very high after intensive usage and never goes down. I wrote a simple
|memory monitoring tool which uses ObjectSpace module to display the
|current heap content. I noticed that there were a lot of StringIO and
|Tempfile object hanging around and never got released by garbage
|collector. The only place where these objects can be created is inside
|the CGI class when the HTTP POST request has a multipart form. Having
|spent a couple of hours in debugger, I was able to identify the source
|of the problem. All these objects were marked by rb_mark_end_proc(),
|which was very alarming especially that 'end_procs' list was unusually
|huge.
CGI_PARAMS and CGI_COOKIES are obsolete. So we can (and should)
remove their supporting code, in which at_exit call exists. Will be
fixed soon.
matz.