[#62297] Re: [ruby-cvs:52906] nari:r45760 (trunk): * gc.c (gc_after_sweep): suppress unnecessary expanding heap. — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
nari@ruby-lang.org wrote:
7 messages
2014/05/02
[#62307] Re: [ruby-cvs:52906] nari:r45760 (trunk): * gc.c (gc_after_sweep): suppress unnecessary expanding heap.
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/05/03
(2014/05/03 4:41), Eric Wong wrote:
[#62402] Re: [ruby-cvs:52906] nari:r45760 (trunk): * gc.c (gc_after_sweep): suppress unnecessary expanding heap.
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/05/05
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#62523] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — ko1@...
Issue #9632 has been updated by Koichi Sasada.
3 messages
2014/05/11
[#62556] doxygen (Re: Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2014-05-11 8:50 GMT+09:00 Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>:
3 messages
2014/05/13
[#62727] [RFC] vm_method.c (rb_method_entry_make): avoid freed me in m_tbl — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
rb_unlink_method_entry may cause old_me to be swept before the new
7 messages
2014/05/24
[#63039] Re: [RFC] vm_method.c (rb_method_entry_make): avoid freed me in m_tbl
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/06/10
Hi,
[#63077] Re: [RFC] vm_method.c (rb_method_entry_make): avoid freed me in m_tbl
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/06/10
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#63086] Re: [RFC] vm_method.c (rb_method_entry_make): avoid freed me in m_tbl
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/06/11
(2014/06/11 4:47), Eric Wong wrote:
[#63087] Re: [RFC] vm_method.c (rb_method_entry_make): avoid freed me in m_tbl
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/06/11
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#62862] [RFC] README.EXT: document rb_gc_register_mark_object — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Any comment on officially supporting this as part of the C API?
5 messages
2014/05/30
[ruby-core:62722] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #9835] IGNORE signal handler has possible race condition in Ruby 2.1.2
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2014-05-24 05:48:56 UTC
List:
ruby-core #62722
nobu@ruby-lang.org wrote: > As signal is asynchronous, it is not guaranteed essentially? The problem is a race with the way we defer signal handling Kyle expected two states for USR1: 1) print children: sighandler, trap_list[sig].cmd === proc 2) ignore: SIG_IGN, trap_list[sig].cmd == 0 However, the problem is we queued a SIGUSR1 at 1), but queue and handle the signal after 2) passes So the queued signal hits cmd==0, leading to rb_threadptr_signal_raise and SignalException. Signals queued after 2) are safe from this condition. > Anyway, the patch doesn't seem evil. OK, I'll wait a bit for Kyle to confirm. However, I just managed to reproduce the issue by limiting to one CPU on one of my machines: schedtool -a 0x1 -e ruby test.rb My proposed patch seems to fix it on my machine.