[#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:61367] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs
(2014/03/07 20:03), SASADA Koichi wrote: >> > Should we ignore WB unprotect for frozen objects? > No relation between frozen and wb unprotected flag. We can use > RARRAY_CONST_PTR() for this case. I'll commit it with other patches. Ah, I understand what you mean. As you say, we *can* ignore unprotect. But I think the checking cost is bigger. -- // SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net