[#5322] O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>

I just did some benchmarks on push, pop, shift, and unshift

24 messages 2005/07/01
[#5338] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/02

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5348] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/02

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5357] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/03

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5359] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/03

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5361] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/03

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5362] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/03

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5365] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/07/04

Hi,

[#5367] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/04

--- Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#5368] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/07/04

Hi,

[#5372] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/07/04

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5420] Sydney Developer Preview 1 released — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...>

Sydney, an experimental ruby interpreter, has been released!

15 messages 2005/07/11
[#5424] Re: [ANN] Sydney Developer Preview 1 released — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2005/07/12

Thanks everyone for the feedback so far!

Re: [ ruby-Bugs-2131 ] ruby ( v183) bcc32: using Socket.new with timeout -> files not closed

From: "daz" <dooby@...10.karoo.co.uk>
Date: 2005-07-23 05:07:29 UTC
List: ruby-core #5510
From: H.Yamamoto (ocean@...)


>
> Can you try this code on Win98? On my machine, this outputs "OK".
>


Good news? -- Mine too gives "OK"

>
> And special adhok patch. I looked into borland RTL source code and found that
> this magic number tells _close() to skip CloseHandle. But I cannot call this "fix"...
>


I deleted these last five lines of the patch - is that OK ?
 (It's replacing 12 lines with 8 ... but early EOF reached)

> @@ -3555,12 +3561,8 @@ unixtime_to_filetime(time_t time, FILETI
>      return 0;
>  }
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>

After applying the patch, our script now gives:

["Net::HTTP", "1.126", "1.1"]
D:/RUBY/SRC_CVSINST/lib/ruby/1.9/net/http.rb:507:in `initialize': getaddrinfo: no address associated with hostname. (SocketError)
 from D:/RUBY/SRC_CVSINST/lib/ruby/1.9/net/http.rb:507:in `connect'
 from D:/RUBY/SRC_CVSINST/lib/ruby/1.9/net/http.rb:507:in `timeout'
 from D:/RUBY/SRC_CVSINST/lib/ruby/1.9/timeout.rb:63:in `timeout'
 from D:/RUBY/SRC_CVSINST/lib/ruby/1.9/net/http.rb:507:in `connect'
 from D:/RUBY/SRC_CVSINST/lib/ruby/1.9/net/http.rb:500:in `do_start'
 from D:/RUBY/SRC_CVSINST/lib/ruby/1.9/net/http.rb:489:in `start'
 from D:/RUBY/SRC_CVSINST/lib/ruby/1.9/net/http.rb:982:in `request'
 from D:/RUBY/SRC_CVSINST/lib/ruby/1.9/net/http.rb:716:in `get'
 from C:/TEMP/rbF223.TMP:5


Well, it's a much better error message than I've had since Nov. 2003  ;-)  ...
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/85522


>
> I think the real problem is, ruby assumes file descripter and socket decripter
> are equivarent. This is true on unix system, but on some platforms. cannot call
> read(2) for socket, close(2) for socket, select(2) for file....
>

Yes.
It's only Windows people, like myself, who learn that sockets
are 'awkward'.  BSD socket design is beautifully simple and I
believe that *nix implements that design faithfully.


> So I think ideal IO system should be something like this.
>
>  [...]
>
> It's just an idea though.
>


Anything that works on all supported platforms is good for me ;-)

Thanks, Yamamoto-san.  IMHO, you are *very* near to a fix.


daz





In This Thread