[#35631] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4558][Open] TestSocket#test_closed_read fails after r31230 — Tomoyuki Chikanaga <redmine@...>

23 messages 2011/04/06

[#35632] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4559][Open] Proc#== does not match the documented behaviour — Adam Prescott <redmine@...>

13 messages 2011/04/06

[#35637] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4561][Open] 1.9.2 requires parentheses around argument of method call in an array, where 1.8.7 did not — Dave Schweisguth <redmine@...>

9 messages 2011/04/07

[#35666] caching of the ancestor chain — Xavier Noria <fxn@...>

Why does Ruby cache the ancestors chain? I mean, not why the implementation implies that, but why it works that way conceptually.

9 messages 2011/04/09

[#35734] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4574][Open] Numeric#within — redmine@...

16 messages 2011/04/13

[#35753] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576][Open] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — redmine@...

61 messages 2011/04/14
[#39566] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...> 2011/09/15

[#39590] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...> 2011/09/16

[#39593] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2011/09/16

2011/9/17 Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@marc-andre.ca>:

[#39608] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4576] Range#step miss the last value, if end-exclusive and has float number — Masahiro TANAKA <masa16.tanaka@...> 2011/09/17

I have not been watching ruby-core, but let me give a comment for this issue.

[#35765] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4579][Open] SecureRandom + OpenSSL may repeat with fork — redmine@...

27 messages 2011/04/15

[#35866] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4603][Open] lib/csv.rb: when the :encoding parameter is not provided, the encoding of CSV data is treated as ASCII-8BIT — yu nobuoka <nobuoka@...>

13 messages 2011/04/24

[#35879] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4610][Open] Proc#curry behavior is inconsistent with lambdas containing default argument values — Joshua Ballanco <jballanc@...>

11 messages 2011/04/25

[#35883] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4611][Open] [BUG] Segementation fault reported — Deryl Doucette <me@...>

15 messages 2011/04/25

[#35895] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4614][Open] [RFC/PATCH] thread_pthread.c: lower RUBY_STACK_MIN_LIMIT to 64K — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>

10 messages 2011/04/25

[ruby-core:35732] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4558][Assigned] TestSocket#test_closed_read fails after r31230

From: "U.Nakamura" <usa@...>
Date: 2011-04-13 04:24:09 UTC
List: ruby-core #35732
Hello,

In message "[ruby-core:35725] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4558][Assigned] TestSocket#test_closed_read fails after r31230"
    on Apr.12,2011 21:31:46, <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or, please explain grounds from which this test should be accepted as behavior of ruby.
> 
> I succuseeded to reporoduce this issue. On win32, IO.close() cause hang-up.
> So, I think we have to discuss two thing.
>  1) Why close() makes hang-up? Is it acceptable behavior?

MSVCRT's fds have their own locks.
MSVCRT locks fds when accessing them -- reading, writing,
closing, etc.
The author of MSVCRT obviously intended the behavior, I think.


>  2) At [ruby-core:35203], We decided IO.close() raise exception to
> othread threads
>      and then they should wake up as ruby-1.8.
>      Should we think win32 is exception for this rule?

I see.  Hmm...

Is the behavior that close() doesn't block and the I/O operations
of other threads are interrupted defind by posix or some specifications?
We found this problem in Windows this time, but might there be
other platforms which have same problem?


Regards,
-- 
U.Nakamura <usa@garbagecollect.jp>


In This Thread