[#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:81231] [Ruby trunk Bug#13574] Method redefinition warning
From:
matthew@...
Date:
2017-05-19 00:25:12 UTC
List:
ruby-core #81231
Issue #13574 has been updated by matthewd (Matthew Draper). As there's no other way to silence the redefinition warning (apart from removing the method first, which isn't atomic), the fact aliases silence it is very useful. As a special case, aliasing it back to itself is particularly helpful for this purpose: it avoids polluting the method table with extra names, and is a clear indication we're not actually trying to give the method another name. I don't know whether it was originally intended to work this way, but I think it is useful enough to keep. I also think a warning is unnecessary because it's not a likely error for a developer to make: there is no similar code that would make more sense. ---------------------------------------- Bug #13574: Method redefinition warning https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13574#change-64885 * Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: * ruby -v: ruby 2.5.0dev (2017-03-22 gc-compact 58059) [x86_64-darwin16] * Backport: 2.2: UNKNOWN, 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Hi, If I redefine a method like this, I get a warning: ~~~ruby class Foo def bar end end class Foo def bar end end ~~~ If I alias the method to a different name, I don't get a warning: ~~~ruby class Foo def bar end end class Foo alias :foo :bar def bar end end ~~~ I think this is expected. However, if I alias the method to itself, I don't get a warning: ~~~ruby class Foo def bar end end class Foo alias :bar :bar def bar end end ~~~ I think this case should cause a warning. ---Files-------------------------------- warn-on-same-name-alias.diff (425 Bytes) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>