[#3479] Missing .document files for ext/ libraries — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>

The ri documentation for zlib, strscan and iconv doesn't get built by 'make

12 messages 2004/10/06

[#3492] Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch — Markus <markus@...>

> In message "Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch"

15 messages 2004/10/11
[#3493] Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2004/10/11

Hi,

[#3495] Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch — Markus <markus@...> 2004/10/12

On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 16:16, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#3561] 1.8.2 - what can we do to help? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

23 messages 2004/10/26
[#3562] Re: 1.8.2 - what can we do to help? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2004/10/27

Hi,

Re: [BUG] segfault in ruby-1.8.2p2

From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2004-10-19 14:14:12 UTC
List: ruby-core #3527
>>>>> "t" == ts  <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:

t> b.rb:3: [BUG] Segmentation fault
t> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-10-18) [i686-linux]

 Do someone has a C compiler which don't define __libc_stack_end ?

 This is the difference between 1.8 and 1.9

 Actually my conclusion is that you can't predict the order of the
 arguments on the stack. For example with 1.8.2-preview2

Breakpoint 2, ruby_exec () at eval.c:1456
1456            eval_node(ruby_top_self, ruby_eval_tree);
(gdb) p &tmp
$1 = (volatile struct RNode **) 0xbffff8ec
(gdb) p prot_tag
$2 = (struct tag *) 0xbffff8f0
(gdb) p prot_tag+1
$3 = (struct tag *) 0xbffff9ac
(gdb) p rb_gc_stack_start
$4 = (VALUE *) 0xbffff900
(gdb) 

 and ruby make the assumption that tmp is in the first position

  Init_stack((void*)&tmp);

 a simple fix like

int
ruby_exec()
{
    volatile NODE *tmp;

    Init_stack((void*)&tmp);
    return ruby_exec0();
}

 seems to correct the problem


Guy Decoux





In This Thread