[#3907] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — Jos Backus <jos@...>

The attached patch implements IO#mode. This method returns the mode the IO

17 messages 2004/12/06
[#3909] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — nobu.nokada@... 2004/12/07

Hi,

[#3910] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — Jos Backus <jos@...> 2004/12/07

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 09:25:13AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#3925] Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object — James Britt <ruby@...> 2004/12/09

Jos Backus wrote:

[#4009] cgi.rb -- more GET/POST stuff — mde@...26.com

First of all, I think it would be great, as Eustaquio suggests, to

17 messages 2004/12/23
[#4016] Re: [PATCH] cgi.rb -- more GET/POST stuff — Francis Hwang <sera@...> 2004/12/24

GETs and POSTs are defined to be fairly different actions. I'd read

[#4027] Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...>

Moin!

35 messages 2004/12/27
[#4070] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — nobu.nokada@... 2005/01/02

Hi,

[#4072] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/02

[#4079] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/01/03

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#4081] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/03

[#4082] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/01/03

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#4084] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2005/01/04

I'm not sure I would advocate making Ruby's grammar even more

[#4086] Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/01/04

[#4033] Garbage collection trouble — Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...>

Hello,

13 messages 2004/12/27

Re: [BUG] unknown node type 0 - SERIOUS ENOUGH TO MIGRATE AWAY FROM RUBY?

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2004-12-15 14:11:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #3971
Hi,

In message "Re: [BUG] unknown node type 0 - SERIOUS ENOUGH TO MIGRATE AWAY FROM RUBY?"
    on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:34:43 +0900, Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

|This is a long standing bug in Ruby, and has been reported hundreds of times 
|by myself and many other people, but never addressed. Unfortunately, the 
|usual response is "Give a small code example reproducing the problem", which 
|is impossible (given the nature of the bug), so it gets overlooked.

Try recent snapshot.  The following change might fix your problem.

Mon Dec 13 18:13:52 2004  Tanaka Akira

	* gc.c (stack_end_address): new function to obtain stack end address.
	  stack_end_address calls __builtin_frame_address(0) to obtain the
	  frame pointer of a stack frame of stack_end_address.  The address
	  is the stack pointer of the caller's stack frame.
	  (SET_STACK_END): use stack_end_address.
	  This makes the conservative garbage collector to scan a stack frame
	  of the garbage_collect function itself.  This is required because
	  callee-save registers may be stored in the frame.
	  [ruby-dev:25158]

							matz.

In This Thread