[#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: Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
Date: 2004-12-15 14:20:46 UTC
List: ruby-core #3972
On Wednesday 15 Dec 2004 14:11, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>
> 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.

Thanks matz. That certainly looks a likely candidate.

I'll upgrade my servers, run some tests and report back shortly.

Andrew Walrond

In This Thread