[#35027] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4352][Open] [patch] Fix eval(s, b) backtrace; make eval(s, b) consistent with eval(s) — "James M. Lawrence" <redmine@...>

Bug #4352: [patch] Fix eval(s, b) backtrace; make eval(s, b) consistent with eval(s)

16 messages 2011/02/01

[#35114] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4373][Open] http.rb:677: [BUG] Segmentation fault — Christian Fazzini <redmine@...>

Bug #4373: http.rb:677: [BUG] Segmentation fault

59 messages 2011/02/06

[#35171] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4386][Open] encoding: directive does not affect regex expressions — mathew murphy <redmine@...>

Bug #4386: encoding: directive does not affect regex expressions

9 messages 2011/02/09

[#35237] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4400][Open] nested at_exit hooks run in strange order — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Bug #4400: nested at_exit hooks run in strange order

12 messages 2011/02/15

[ruby-core:35083] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4197][Closed] Improvement of the benchmark library

From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
Date: 2011-02-04 03:23:52 UTC
List: ruby-core #35083
2011/2/4 Benoit Daloze <eregontp@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
> On 1 February 2011 05:38, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> The change log says, test/benchmark has been changed only warnings issue
>> by this commit. However it has more widely change and it made a false positive
>> test failure on windows.
>
> Sorry, I forgot about windows' imprecision.
>
> I intended to do a sleep(), but did not want to slow down the test and
> thought just running the block was enough.
>
> Thanks for the patch.

No problem. :)
At minimum, your code is very clean and good readable. therefore I could find
the test failure reason and fix it quickly.

Thank you too.

In This Thread