[#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:
ts <decoux@...>
Date:
2004-09-15 09:26:05 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3403
>>>>> "H" == H Yamamoto <ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp> writes:
>> The problem with such examples is that only *one* person can reproduce
>> it. Difficult to say something about it.
H> Yes, I couldn't reproduce that in my gcc (2.9 in beos)...
H> And even this code didn't crash.
It's a little more complex : I can give you an example with 1.8.0
Look at [ruby-talk:80435] and try this script with 1.8.0
------------------------------------------------------------
thread_block= Proc.new do
1.upto(20000) do
a = {1 => 2}
end
Thread.new &thread_block
end
1.upto(120) do
Thread.new &thread_block
end
Thread.stop
------------------------------------------------------------
Now if ruby crash, rewrite mark_locations_array() like this
------------------------------------------------------------
static void
mark_locations_array(x, n)
register VALUE *x;
register long n;
{
VALUE tmp;
while (n--) {
if (is_pointer_to_heap((void *)*x)) {
tmp = *x;
rb_gc_mark(tmp);
}
x++;
}
}
------------------------------------------------------------
and you'll see that ruby work (normally)
If you look at the patch to correct this problem, written by matz, you'll
see that it has nothing to do with `volatile'
Now if you want to know why I've introduced the variable `tmp', this is
just to make in sort that the assembler was different and because the
assembler was modified this hyde completely the bug.
What I want to say is : when you have such a problem (bug that you can see
only with some C flags like -O3) this don't means that it exist fatally a
problem with `volatile' and worst you can make some subtle modifications
(like add `volatile') and this will hide the real bug.
Guy Decoux