[#80974] [Ruby trunk Feature#13517] [PATCH] reduce rb_mutex_t size from 160 to 80 bytes on 64-bit — ko1@...
Issue #13517 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
4 messages
2017/05/02
[#81024] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13517] [PATCH] reduce rb_mutex_t size from 160 to 80 bytes on 64-bit
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2017/05/07
sorry for late response.
[#80996] [Ruby trunk Feature#13544] Allow loading an ISeqs sequence directly from a C extension without requiring buffer is in an RVALUE — sam.saffron@...
Issue #13544 has been reported by sam.saffron (Sam Saffron).
3 messages
2017/05/04
[#81016] [Ruby trunk Bug#13526] Segmentation fault at 0x0055c2e58e8920 ruby 2.3.1p112 (2016-04-26 revision 54768) [x86_64-linux] — s.wanabe@...
Issue #13526 has been updated by wanabe (_ wanabe).
3 messages
2017/05/07
[#81048] Re: [ruby-cvs:65788] normal:r58614 (trunk): rb_execution_context_t: move stack, stack_size and cfp from rb_thread_t — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
It causes compile error on raspi 3.
3 messages
2017/05/09
[#81201] Re: [ruby-cvs:65935] normal:r58761 (trunk): test/test_extilibs.rb: do not check the existence of fiddle — "U.NAKAMURA" <usa@...>
Hi, Eric
4 messages
2017/05/16
[#81202] Re: [ruby-cvs:65935] normal:r58761 (trunk): test/test_extilibs.rb: do not check the existence of fiddle
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/05/16
"U.NAKAMURA" <usa@garbagecollect.jp> wrote:
[#81427] Fwd: [ruby-changes:46809] normal:r58924 (trunk): test for IO.copy_stream CPU usage (r58534) — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Hi,
6 messages
2017/05/28
[#81428] Re: Fwd: [ruby-changes:46809] normal:r58924 (trunk): test for IO.copy_stream CPU usage (r58534)
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/05/28
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[ruby-core:81190] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#13564] Exception message management
From:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Date:
2017-05-16 01:58:58 UTC
List:
ruby-core #81190
On 2017/05/15 20:31, eregontp@gmail.com wrote: > I think using Exception#cause for this would be a better way to address this problem. > However, there is a long-standing bug of the cause not being shown in Exception#inspect and neither by the top-level handler: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9918 I agree it is one solution. However, to make sure transparency (for `rescue` clause which catch the exception later) we need to provide same error class (`$!.class`). > @ko1: Could you share your use-case? Modifying an exception message in ensure seems unusual to me. > In the test_gem_gem_runner.rb, it seems `rescue Exception` would be more intuitive to handle this (but it has the same problem about modifying the message). My usage is a bit strange. I want to know the status about just before suspicious code (`require 'rubygems/gem_runner'`) and just after this line if $! is not nil. Usually we can show such information on STDERR but test framework (test-all with parallel option) hides all of STDERR output so that we need to show via Exception message. I think such usage is not so frequent so that > Otherwise I think 1-1 + 2 is the best compromise. I think (1) without (2) (with [Feature #9918]) is acceptable. Thanks, Koichi -- // SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>