[#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

[ ruby-Bugs-3683 ] rails segfaults at 2nd load with eval.c: No such file or directory.

From: noreply@...
Date: 2006-02-28 15:46:50 UTC
List: ruby-core #7460
Bugs item #3683, was opened at 2006-02-28 10:33
You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=3683&group_id=426

Category: Core
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 3
Submitted By: Payton Swick (brillig)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: rails segfaults at 2nd load with eval.c: No such file or directory.

Initial Comment:
When running a rails app using webrick or mongrel, I can load any given page
(involving a controller) once, and any subsequent page loads trigger a
"Segmentation fault".

This problem is very new, and has only started occurring since I last updated
my Gentoo linux system.  The bug was submitted to Gentoo, but they believe it to be a ruby issue:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123718

I did try recompiling ruby and reinstalling the rails gem (as well as
activerecord, actionpack, actionmailer, actionwebservice, activesupport). I use
ruby and rubygems from portage, but I use rails and associated packages from
gems.  I'm using ruby-1.8.4-r1 and rubygems-0.8.11.  (I have also tried rubygems-0.8.11-r3, rubygems-0.8.11-r4, and ruby-1.8.4.20060226).  I was loading ruby-mysql, but I have since disabled activerecord, and there has been no change in the problem.

Here's my test case:

$ rails testing
$ cd testing
$ ruby ./script/server
# webrick starts
$ wget http://localhost:3000/
# This works fine, no matter how many times it loads the HTML.
$ wget http://localhost:3000/test
# ERROR 404: Not Found.
$ wget http://localhost:3000/test
# ERROR 404: Not Found.
$ wget http://localhost:3000/test
# ERROR 500: Internal Server Error.
$ wget http://localhost:3000/test
# No data received.
# At this point, webrick has segfaulted.

The beginning of the segfault, with debug symbols enabled, looks like this:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 16384 (LWP 2768)]
rb_eval (self=7907598, n=0xb75ae860) at eval.c:2879
2879    eval.c: No such file or directory.
        in eval.c

A full backtrace is available on the gentoo bug report.

-Payton



----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1698&aid=3683&group_id=426

In This Thread

Prev Next