[#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:35379] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4447] [Open] add String#byteslice() method

From: Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...>
Date: 2011-02-25 20:42:13 UTC
List: ruby-core #35379
On Feb 25, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Martin J. Dst wrote:

> string.force_encoding(ENCODING::BINARY).slice almost does what you want, very efficiently. The problem is that the string will then be marked as BINARY. This can be set back, but it may affect operations that run in parallel. To expand on this, something like

Isn't any manipulation of a string via two threads simultaneously already not thread safe?

That is to say, toggling the encoding doesn't make the situation any worse than it is with String#slice all by itself.

Gary Wright

In This Thread