[#7286] Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273 — ara.t.howard@...

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Minero Aoki wrote:

23 messages 2006/02/02
[#7292] ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/02/02

[#7293] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/02/02

mathew wrote:

[#7298] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — James Britt <ruby@...> 2006/02/03

mathew wrote:

[#7310] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2006/02/07

I'm not sure we even need the 'with' syntax. Even if we do, it breaks

[#7311] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2006/02/07

On 2006.02.07 10:03, Evan Webb wrote:

[#7313] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2006/02/07

Umm, on what version are you seeing a warning there? I don't and never

[#7315] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2006/02/07

On 2006.02.07 14:47, Evan Webb wrote:

[#7316] Re: ANDCALL / iff? / &? (was Re: ruby-dev summary 28206-28273) — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2006/02/07

I'd by far prefer it never emit a warning. The warning is assumes you

[#7305] Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3 — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>

On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:33:40PM +0900, Christian Neukirchen wrote:

28 messages 2006/02/05
[#7401] Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/02/22

On Feb 5, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:

[#7414] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/02/23

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:21:24PM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:

[#7428] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/26

In article <1140968746.321377.18843.nullmailer@x31.priv.netlab.jp>,

[#7444] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — nobu@... 2006/02/28

Hi,

[#7445] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/28

In article <m1FDshr-0006MNC@Knoppix>,

[#7447] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/28

In article <87irr047sx.fsf@m17n.org>,

[#7448] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/02/28

In article <87vev0hxu5.fsf@m17n.org>,

[#7465] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — "Evan Webb" <evanwebb@...> 2006/03/01

Just my quick 2 cents...

[#7468] Re: Symbols overlap ordinary objects, especially on OS X (Was: Re: Problem with weak references on OS X 10.3) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2006/03/01

In article <92f5f81d0602281855g27e78f4eua8bf20e0b8e47b68@mail.gmail.com>,

[#7403] Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — Emiel van de Laar <emiel@...>

Hi List,

12 messages 2006/02/22
[#7404] Re: Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — George Ogata <g_ogata@...> 2006/02/22

Emiel van de Laar <emiel@rednode.nl> writes:

[#7406] Re: Module#define_method "send hack" fails with Ruby 1.9 — dblack@... 2006/02/22

Hi --

[#7442] GC Question — zdennis <zdennis@...>

I have been posting to the ruby-talk mailing list about ruby memory and GC, and I think it's ready

17 messages 2006/02/27

Re: GC Question

From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2006-02-28 15:07:56 UTC
List: ruby-core #7458
>>>>> "z" == zdennis  <zdennis@mktec.com> writes:

z> Attempting to apply patch to array.c from 1.8.4 I get:

 Well here a debugging session if you want to try to understand what it do

 I put my comments in /* ... */

(gdb) r
The program being debugged has been started already.
Start it from the beginning? (y or n) y
Starting program: /i/home/msys/decoux/ruby/ruby-1.8.4/ruby b.rb
187
before

Breakpoint 2, rb_eval (self=3085161320, n=0xb7e3dcdc) at eval.c:3711
3711		result = rb_ary_new();
(gdb)

 /* first breakpoint in rb_eval() (NODE_ZARRAY) */

(gdb) p &result
$97 = (volatile VALUE *) 0xbffff220
(gdb) c
Continuing.

Breakpoint 9, rb_ary_push (ary=3085161280, item=3085161220) at array.c:403
403	    rb_ary_store(ary, RARRAY(ary)->len, item);

 /* second breakpoint in rb_ary_push() */

(gdb) printf "%p\n", 0xbffff220-2452
0xbfffe88c
(gdb) printf "%p\n", *(0xbffff220-2452)
(nil)

 /* don't ask me why I use the magic value 2452 :-) */
 /* ruby has nothing at this address */

(gdb) s
rb_ary_store (ary=3085161280, idx=0, val=0) at array.c:352
352	    if (idx < 0) {
(gdb) printf "%p\n", *(0xbffff220-2452)
0xb7e3d340
(gdb) p *(struct RArray *)0xb7e3d340
$98 = {basic = {flags = 9, klass = 3085202720}, len = 0, aux = {capa = 16, shared = 16}, ptr = 0x812af28}
(gdb) 

 /* now the address (0xbffff220-2452) make reference to the Array */

 /* now I remove the breakpoint to wait it in garbage_collect() */

(gdb) c
Continuing.
check now
853640
Breakpoint 4, gc_mark_children (ptr=3085161280, lev=1) at gc.c:920
920		    VALUE *ptr = obj->as.array.ptr;
(gdb) up
#1  0x0806f02b in mark_locations_array (x=0xbfffe88c, n=1432) at gc.c:626
626		    gc_mark(v, 0);
(gdb) printf "%p\n", 0xbffff220-2452
0xbfffe88c
(gdb) 

 /* 
    ruby is marking the stack and in the stack it has found something
    at (0xbffff220-2452) == 0xbfffe88c : this is the location where the array
    was stored when it was in rb_ary_store() and this location was never
    cleaned nor replaced by another value and ruby logically mark the
    array. This is why it can't remove it
 */



Guy Decoux

In This Thread