[#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:81299] [CommonRuby Feature#8661] Add option to print backstrace in reverse order(stack frames first & error last)
From:
shyouhei@...
Date:
2017-05-20 02:14:10 UTC
List:
ruby-core #81299
Issue #8661 has been updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe). FYI it is intentional for this feature being automatically enabled right now, instead of some configuration like the OP requests. The reason behind this is that stderr is expected to be passed to other processes (like some logging infrastructure for instance). If the order of backtraces is configurable, it becoms impossible for such outer-process things to detect which. So configuration is a bad idea in this area. Either the backtrace is ascending or descending, that order should be static and should never be configurable. P.S. I get confused too so I personally don't like the way it is. ---------------------------------------- Feature #8661: Add option to print backstrace in reverse order(stack frames first & error last) https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8661#change-64972 * Author: gary4gar (Gaurish Sharma) * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) * Target version: ---------------------------------------- Currently the way ruby prints the backtrace is that the error comes first & then the stack frames. like this ``` Main Error Message stack frame 1 stack frame 2 stack frame 3 ..... ``` this is perfectly fine provided 1. Backstraces are short, so fits in terminal.hence, no need to scroll. 2. you read it from top to bottom. But, I am a rails developer where 1. Backstraces are always HUGE, therefore seldom don't fit in terminal. Means LOTS of scrolling to do everytime we get an error. 2. in terminal we tend to read backstraces from bottom to top, especially when tailing(tail -f) the production logs. 3. people, who practice Test-driven development literally spend most of their time scrolling to read backstraces to the point most end up buying a larger display. Proposed Solution: Please add a way so we can configure backstraces to be printed in reverse order. so if you are reading from bottom, say from terminal, you can get the main error message without need to scroll. like this ``` stack frame 3 stack frame 2 stack frame 1 Main Error Message ..... ``` this would save lot of time because when the error message is print at the bottom, no need to scroll for reading it. Not sure if this can be done today. I tried Overriding Exception#backtrace but it caused stack level too deep & illegal hardware instruction Error. Attached are currently what backstrace currently looks like & how there be an option to make it look for comparison. ---Files-------------------------------- current.log (5.13 KB) proposed.log (4.9 KB) -- 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>