[#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:35735] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4558][Assigned] TestSocket#test_closed_read fails after r31230

From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
Date: 2011-04-13 12:14:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #35735
Hi

2011/4/13 U.Nakamura <usa@garbagecollect.jp>:
> Hello,
>
> In message "[ruby-core:35725] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4558][Assigned] TestSocket#test_closed_read fails after r31230"
> n 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.
>> ) 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.

ok, I see.


>> ) At [ruby-core:35203], We decided IO.close() raise exception to
>> othread threads
>> nd then they should wake up as ruby-1.8.
>> hould we think win32 is exception for this rule?
>
> I see. mm...
>
> Is the behavior that close() doesn't block and the I/O operations
> of other threads are interrupted defind by posix or some specifications?

No. It's purely implementation defined.

> We found this problem in Windows this time, but might there be
> other platforms which have same problem?

It's possible.
So, now I'm incline to revert r30852.

nobu, What do you think?

In This Thread