[#78949] [Ruby trunk Feature#13095] [PATCH] io.c (rb_f_syscall): remove deprecation notice — kosaki.motohiro@...
Issue #13095 has been updated by Motohiro KOSAKI.
3 messages
2017/01/03
[#78997] [Ruby trunk Bug#13110] Byte-based operations for String — shugo@...
Issue #13110 has been updated by Shugo Maeda.
3 messages
2017/01/06
[#79228] Re: [ruby-cvs:64576] naruse:r57410 (trunk): Prevent GC by volatile [Bug #13150] — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
naruse@ruby-lang.org wrote:
5 messages
2017/01/23
[#79511] Re: [ruby-cvs:64576] naruse:r57410 (trunk): Prevent GC by volatile [Bug #13150]
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/02/13
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#79518] Re: [ruby-cvs:64576] naruse:r57410 (trunk): Prevent GC by volatile [Bug #13150]
— Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
2017/02/13
On 2017/02/13 10:04, Eric Wong wrote:
[#79298] [Ruby trunk Bug#13085][Assigned] io.c io_fwrite creates garbage — nobu@...
Issue #13085 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
3 messages
2017/01/29
[#79337] Re: [ruby-changes:45397] normal:r57469 (trunk): io.c: recycle garbage on write — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Eric:
4 messages
2017/01/31
[#79352] Re: [ruby-changes:45397] normal:r57469 (trunk): io.c: recycle garbage on write
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/01/31
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[ruby-core:78952] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13095] [PATCH] io.c (rb_f_syscall): remove deprecation notice
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2017-01-03 18:29:23 UTC
List:
ruby-core #78952
kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com wrote: > >We should expect users of this to be able to read and follow > >documentation. We already have a warning about it. I prefer we > >allow it to improve, and allow users to shoot themselves in the > >foot if necessary. > > This is unrelated what I said. I said current interface (both C level and Ruby level) is not designed well and then, > user have _no way_ to write correct code. Ruby code have no way to care about memory alignment. I didn't only talk > about just careless user. We can support String#pack for those cases, I think (or add support). I haven't tried the incompatible functions/arch, yet. > >As I've said before: I don't want Ruby to be > >a nanny scripting language. > > I agree. But I don't think this patch is a right direction. > I'm curious. Why you don't like to make proper new C extension? > C program have a _way_ to treat syscall(2) interface correctly. C extensions require user to either have a compiler, or install a pre-built binary. Both have extra distribution and installation costs which are high for small (old i686) systems and users with limited bandwidth/storage. For those reasons, I prefer to use scripting as much as possible. Over the past year or so, I've been trying to avoid programming in any compiled languages. > >Anyways, I plan on having this release GVL for slow syscalls > >and maybe other small improvements. > > Wait. This? Which patch do you talk about? As far as I can see, current attached patch only remove a warning. Doesn't it? This patch to undeprecate, first. I have not implemented GVL release, yet; I will if I can get this undeprecated. Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>