[#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:35746] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4558] TestSocket#test_closed_read fails after r31230

From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date: 2011-04-13 19:32:06 UTC
List: ruby-core #35746
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Issue #4558 has been updated by Eric Wong.
> >
> > I consider either Errno::EBADF or IOError to be acceptable.
> 
> Hmm...
> I can't agree this. If EBADF can be observed, we can observe completely
> unrelated file when a fd number was recycled just after close.

Actually, I expect EBADF make any read/write-retry loop stop
immediately, but yes, exposing IOError to user is better.

> Hmm...
> If windows can't implement close() case, I doubt r30852 is correct fix.
> Is this really worth that *nix and windows have different spec?

If r30852 is reverted, Linux (and maybe other *nix) will still break
threads out of blocking read/write with EBADF and
rb_io_wait_*able(fptr->fd) will raise IOError as long as we
assign fptr->fd = -1 before the actual close() call in IO#close.

Maybe Windows (and possibly other OS) will be forced to call do_select()
to implement behavior consistent with Linux.

On a related note, r30852 also has the problem with making IO#close an
O(n) operation since it needs to scan through all threads (and I'd like
to run thousands of threads :>).

-- 
Eric Wong

In This Thread