[#3358] Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare) — Patrick May <patrick@...>
Hello,
8 messages
2004/09/09
[#3359] Re: Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare)
— Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
2004/09/09
Patrick May (patrick@hexane.org) wrote:
[#3419] Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
Hello list,
19 messages
2004/09/17
[#3422] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3423] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:01, ts wrote:
[#3424] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3425] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:37, ts wrote:
[#3426] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3428] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:05, ts wrote:
[#3429] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3430] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:30, ts wrote:
[#3431] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3432] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3433] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
There is a minor flaw in my analysis toward the end; ignore previous email
[#3434] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3437] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2004/09/17
Hi,
Re: [PATCH] dir.c --- Dir.chdir error handling
From:
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date:
2004-09-13 15:05:01 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3388
Hi,
In message "Re: [PATCH] dir.c --- Dir.chdir error handling"
on Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:30:06 +0900, H.Yamamoto <ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp> writes:
|To confirm this, we must go down function call. That is,
|
| void somefunc()
| {
| VALUE s = rb_str_new2("foo");
|
| func1(s);
| }
|
| void func1(VALUE v) /* this function doesn't protect v explicitly, so that resposibility */
| { /* is for sub functions ... */
| /* too complex codes here */
|
| rb_fooboo(v);
|
| if (/* ...... */)
| {
| func2(v, -1, 2, 3);
| }
| else
| {
| func3(1, v, rb_str_new2("foo"));
| }
| }
|
|And move to func2, func3.... mostly object will be protected with volatile or
|touched with OBJ_INFECT() or StringValue() somewhere, but there is possibility
|none of the functions won't protect it. I think [ruby-dev:19854] is such bug.
As Guy stated in [ruby-talk:03387], the VALUEs must be referenced from
somewhere (even without volatile) if it's still alive (in GC sense);
you don't have to worry about protection. The only exception is the
usage of internal data _after_ the last reference to the VALUE. In
that case, the VALUE reference might be optimized out, and GC may
cause unexpected free().
Or am I missing something?
matz.