[#5737] returning strings from methods/instance_methods — TRANS <transfire@...>

I was just wondering why with #methods and #instance_methods, it was

11 messages 2005/09/08

[#5796] proposed attr writer patch — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...>

Hi all,

18 messages 2005/09/16

[#5798] Makefile error in OpenSLL extension (on Windows) — noreply@...

Bugs item #2472, was opened at 2005-09-16 18:56

11 messages 2005/09/17
[#5800] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-2472 ] Makefile error in OpenSLL extension (on Windows) — nobu.nokada@... 2005/09/17

Hi,

[#5851] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — Paul van Tilburg <paul@...>

Hi all,

34 messages 2005/09/21
[#5867] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — mathew <meta@...> 2005/09/21

Paul van Tilburg wrote:

[#5870] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — Marc Dequènes (Duck) <Duck@...> 2005/09/21

[#5920] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — mathew <meta@...> 2005/09/22

Marc Dequ竪nes (Duck) wrote:

[#5926] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — Pascal Terjan <pterjan@...> 2005/09/23

On 9/22/05, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:

[#5931] Re: RubyGems in Ruby HEAD — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/23

On 9/23/05, Pascal Terjan <pterjan@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5898] Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

I've tried to send these files through a couple of times now with

17 messages 2005/09/22
[#5911] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/09/22

On Sep 22, 2005, at 9:02 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#5924] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/09/23

On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:53 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#5941] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/09/23

Hi,

[#5942] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/09/23

On Sep 23, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5947] Re: Delegate and Forwardable Documentation — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/09/23

Hi,

[#5921] Mutually dependent libs double loading. — TRANS <transfire@...>

I'm on Ruby 1.8.2.

14 messages 2005/09/23
[#5923] Re: Mutually dependent libs double loading. — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/09/23

TRANS wrote:

[#5985] Finally an answer to my RubyGems question and some small suggestions — TRANS <transfire@...>

I appreciate those that attempted to offer me some info on this issue.

9 messages 2005/09/26

[#6001] Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem — TRANS <transfire@...>

I've added namespaces to require. Works like this:

94 messages 2005/09/26
[#6002] Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/26

On 9/26/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6003] Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem — TRANS <transfire@...> 2005/09/26

On 9/26/05, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6005] Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/26

On 9/26/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6007] gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/09/26

Quoting halostatue@gmail.com, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 06:02:07AM +0900:

[#6013] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/26/05, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#6014] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/09/27

Quoting halostatue@gmail.com, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:29:17AM +0900:

[#6015] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/09/27

On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Sam Roberts wrote:

[#6016] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/09/27

Quoting james@grayproductions.net, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:06:01AM +0900:

[#6018] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/26/05, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#6019] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Sam Roberts <sroberts@...> 2005/09/27

Quoting halostatue@gmail.com, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:49:14AM +0900:

[#6024] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/27/05, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#6025] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@...> 2005/09/27

> Right now, they're watching people who have pretty much sat on the side

[#6026] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/27/05, Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6043] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@...> 2005/09/28

I'll greatly weaken my post, and give everyone the opportunity to head me

[#6044] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2005/09/28

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Ralph Amissah wrote:

[#6073] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Mauricio Fern疣dez <mfp@...> 2005/09/28

Hello,

[#6074] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Jim Weirich <jim@...> 2005/09/29

On Wednesday 28 September 2005 07:35 pm, Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:

[#6017] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/27

On 9/26/05, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:

[#6046] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/09/28

On Monday 26 September 2005 22:41, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#6050] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2005/09/28

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Sean E. Russell wrote:

[#6207] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/10/10

On Wednesday 28 September 2005 08:54, Hugh Sasse wrote:

[#6045] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/09/28

On Monday 26 September 2005 21:29, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#6048] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/28

On 9/28/05, Sean E. Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:

[#6059] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Dominique Brezinski <dominique.brezinski@...> 2005/09/28

On 9/28/05, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6061] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/09/28

On 9/28/05, Dominique Brezinski <dominique.brezinski@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6062] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — Dominique Brezinski <dominique.brezinski@...> 2005/09/28

For what it is worth, I live life behind an authenticated proxy, so I

[#6099] Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem) — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/09/30

On Wednesday 28 September 2005 08:43, Austin Ziegler wrote:

[#6009] Re: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@...>

(i) correction, segfault is with official ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21), not

21 messages 2005/09/27
[#6010] Fwd: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@...> 2005/09/27

[sorry for duplicate post]

[#6079] Re: Fwd: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — ts <decoux@...> 2005/09/29

>>>>> "R" == Ralph Amissah <ralph.amissah@gmail.com> writes:

[#6081] Re: Fwd: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — ts <decoux@...> 2005/09/29

>>>>> "t" == ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:

[#6082] Re: Fwd: ruby 1.8.3 (2005-09-21) [i486-linux] sisu segfault — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2005/09/29

In article <200509291419.j8TEJYid015419@moulon.inra.fr>,

Weird SIGCHLD-related problem

From: Ben Schumacher <benschumacher@...>
Date: 2005-09-18 15:18:48 UTC
List: ruby-core #5818
Hello-

I'm experiencing an odd issue with a fork'd child process and I was
hoping somebody on this list might be able to help my find a solution.
Here are the conditions.

First things first:

OS: FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11
ruby: ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [i386-freebsd4]

I'm using a ruby script of my own devising to filter my email from
qmail. This works by just adding "|bin/mail-filter.rb" to the .qmail
file in my home directory. The script does a lot of things, but to
verify the problem is with signal handling, I created a really simple
script just for testing. It's contents are:

#!/usr/local/bin/ruby18
Signal.trap(0, lambda { puts "Terminating: #{$$}" })
Signal.trap('CLD') { puts 'Child died' }
fork && Process.wait

The output of which ought to be something like this:

Terminating: 62679
Child died
Terminating: 62678

That script was actually borrowed verbatim from Pickaxe II. When I run
this script from the shell, everything works as expected. However,
when it gets excuted by qmail (qmail-local, to be exact) the child
fork becomes a zombie. It's basically like the CLD signal is never
caught and therefore the Process.wait hangs indefinitely. Really odd.

While testing, I was having problems with all these zombied processing
hanging around forever and decided to alter the test script to kill
itself, using a Thread, after 30 seconds (obviously more than enough
time for the forked child to die), so the script became:

#!/usr/local/bin/ruby18
Thread.new { sleep(30); puts "Killing"; Process.kill(9) }
Signal.trap(0, lambda { puts "Terminating: #{$$}" })
Signal.trap('CLD') { puts 'Child died' }
fork && Process.wait

When run on the shell, this produces no noticable difference in output
as the race condition (30 seconds until the kill is fired) will pretty
much never happen before the child dies and the parent dies. However,
what happened when running this script under qmail really surprised
me. The output in my logs was this:

Terminating: 62679
Terminating: 62678

So the script, more or less, works, except that it seems like the CLD
signal is still not getting trapped. I haven't spent any time looking
into the internals of either ruby or qmail, so I'm not sure what goes
on with the signal handling in either of those, but it strikes me as
really strange that by simply introducing a Thread into the mix, the
Process.wait doesn't hang forever and the fork'd child doesn't become
a zombie.

Any ideas what might be going on?

To add more confusing to the mix, I should, also, note that this same
script (changing Signal to Kernel, of course) works fine under ruby
1.6 (ruby 1.6.8 (2003-10-15) [i386-freebsd4] to be exact. I have both
versions running side-by-side on my system.

If I get the chance (which I probably won't for a couple days), I'll
dig into ruby's signal handling and threading code and see if I can
figure anything out, but I thought I'd run it past the guru's first.

Cheers.

Ben


In This Thread

Prev Next