[#61171] Re: [ruby-changes:33145] normal:r45224 (trunk): gc.c: fix build for testing w/o RGenGC — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
(2014/03/01 16:15), normal wrote:
[#61243] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9425] [PATCH] st: use power-of-two sizes to avoid slow modulo ops — normalperson@...
Issue #9425 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#61359] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs — normalperson@...
Issue #9609 has been reported by Eric Wong.
(2014/03/07 19:09), normalperson@yhbt.net wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61424] [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I'm unsure about this. I _hate_ the extra branches this adds;
Hi Eric,
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
(2014/03/14 2:12), Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61452] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [Open] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#61496] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9638] [Open] [PATCH] limit IDs to 32-bits on 64-bit systems — normalperson@...
Issue #9638 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#61568] hash function for global method cache — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I came upon this because I noticed existing st numtable worked poorly
(2014/03/18 8:03), Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
what's the profit from using binary tree in place of hash?
Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com> wrote:
[#61687] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9606] Ocassional SIGSEGV inTestException#test_machine_stackoverflow on OpenBSD — normalperson@...
Issue #9606 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#61760] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[ruby-core:61223] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #9508] Add method coverage and branch coverage metrics
sam.rawlins@gmail.com wrote: > Oh, sorry, Eric. eaadf820633e74350404d009a1c251f6319454aa was just the last commit I made to tweak when coverage is initialized. The entire patch would be my cumulative pull request: > > https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/511.patch Yes, and your patch results in tree 7a51f93796a28bcbf9cb8fa25c6b752202c517ae (which is your commit eaadf820633e74350404d009a1c251f6319454aa) I also tried applying your series on top of current trunk, and got the same result. > I can compile ruby and run all coverage tests: "make check" passed for me, too; but did you try my failing command? ruby -rcoverage -e 'Coverage.start; require "tempfile"'