From: "drbrain (Eric Hodel)" <drbrain@...7.net> Date: 2013-12-02T13:43:24+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:58771] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9114][Rejected] InstructionSequence.compile w/tailcall_optimization: true, trace_instruction: false not working as expected Issue #9114 has been updated by drbrain (Eric Hodel). Status changed from Assigned to Rejected No time was wasted, I wanted to be sure your use-case was understood. As you requested, this issue is now closed. ---------------------------------------- Bug #9114: InstructionSequence.compile w/tailcall_optimization: true, trace_instruction: false not working as expected https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9114#change-43340 Author: garysweaver (Gary Weaver) Status: Rejected Priority: Normal Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) Category: Target version: ruby -v: ruby 2.0.0p247 (2013-06-27 revision 41674) [x86_64-darwin11.4.2] Backport: 1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN Code to reproduce is a recursive sort I wrote; I was trying to compile RubyVM::InstructionSequence with tailcall_optimization: true, trace_instruction: false, which has worked before, but not for this case. method_string = <<RUBY def recursively_sort(obj, in_sort_by=false) if obj.respond_to?(:sort_by) obj.sort_by{|*args|args.map{|v|recursively_sort(v, true)}} end rescue nil in_sort_by ? (obj.to_s rescue obj.inspect rescue nil) : obj end RUBY RubyVM::InstructionSequence.new(method_string, nil, nil, nil, tailcall_optimization: true, trace_instruction: false).eval a = eval '[{b:['*1000 + '2,1' + '],a:1}]'*1000 recursively_sort a results in error for latest releases of Ruby 1.9.3 and 2.0.0: 1.9.3-p448 :014 > recursively_sort a SystemStackError: stack level too deep from /Users/gary/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.3-p448/lib/ruby/1.9.1/irb/workspace.rb:80 Maybe IRB bug! 2.0.0p247 :014 > recursively_sort a SystemStackError: stack level too deep from /Users/gary/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/irb/workspace.rb:86 Maybe IRB bug! I had assumed that since the blocks were defined within the tail call optimized method that referenced the method compiled with TCO, it would still be tail call optimized. Did I do something wrong/is there a suggested workaround? Thanks for looking at this! -- http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/