[#80531] Re: [ruby-cvs:65407] normal:r58236 (trunk): thread.c: comments on M:N threading [ci skip] — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
SASADA Koichi <ko1@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
On 2017/04/02 11:35, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/08 9:33, Eric Wong wrote:
On 2017/05/08 10:53, SASADA Koichi wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/08 12:01, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/08 15:36, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/09 12:38, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/09 14:12, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/09 15:23, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
Thank you.
[#80763] [Ruby trunk Feature#13434] better method definition in C API — naruse@...
Issue #13434 has been updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE).
[#80844] [Ruby trunk Bug#13503] Improve performance of some Time & Rational methods — watson1978@...
Issue #13503 has been updated by watson1978 (Shizuo Fujita).
[#80892] [Ruby trunk Misc#13514] [PATCH] thread_pthread.c (native_sleep): preserve old unblock function — ko1@...
Issue #13514 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
ko1@atdot.net wrote:
On 2017/04/27 8:58, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[ruby-core:80774] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13362][Feedback] [PATCH] socket: avoid fcntl for read/write_nonblock on Linux
akr@fsij.org wrote: > Issue #13362 has been updated by akr (Akira Tanaka). > > Status changed from Open to Feedback > > I think it's possible on such platforms. > > If some non-Ruby application depend on nonblocking flag set by Ruby, > such application will be affected, though. Yes, there may be some code which depends on side-effects. However, I think it is a minor concern and anything which inherits sockets ought to know to set flags correctly. Normal Ruby code does not have this problem, since blocking methods know to call rb_io_wait_*able on EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK. > It is better style that such application set nonblocking flag explicitly. Right. Should I commit? Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>