[#8136] Confused exception handling in Continuation Context — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi all

13 messages 2006/07/06

[#8248] One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...>

I just posted this to ruby-talk. But I would also like to discuss this

33 messages 2006/07/18
[#8264] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

From my experience using both tool chains on Windows (for the ruby-prof

[#8266] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...> 2006/07/19

Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8267] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

> Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8271] my sandboxing extension!! — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

I have (what feels like) very exciting news. I finally sat down to code up my

17 messages 2006/07/19

[#8430] Re: doc patch: weakref. — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>

> -----Original Message-----

19 messages 2006/07/28
[#8434] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/29

Hi,

[#8436] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2006/07/29

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#8437] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/07/29

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:37:24PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:

[#8441] Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...>

I have the following code:

18 messages 2006/07/30
[#8442] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — nobu@... 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8443] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/30

Why does this:

[#8445] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8454] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/31

So to clarify...

Re: Patch to Ruby in 2005

From: nobu@...
Date: 2006-07-20 15:19:59 UTC
List: ruby-core #8321
Hi,

At Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:11:09 +0900,
John Fletcher wrote in [ruby-core:08290]:
> 
> [1 Mail message body <text/plain; US-ASCII (7bit)>]
> According to the ChangeLog in Ruby 1.8.4 the 
> following patch was made to Ruby in 2005
> 
> Wed Jun  8 08:33:10 2005  Nobuyoshi Nakada  <nobu@ruby-
> lang.org>
> * eval.c (backtrace): skip successive frames sharing same node. 
> 
> We are having some trouble as a result, because when using the 
> coerce feature of ruby, the call stack no longer contains the 
> information needed, and we have traced this to a line of code in
> backtrace in eval.c.
> 
>  if (frame->prev->node == n) continue;
> 
> If this is commented out then the problem goes away.
> 
> The problem is that the calling operator e.g. `+' is no longer in the
> string given by caller[0] and so it is not possible to take different
> action depending on different operators.

Does this help?


Index: eval.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ruby/src/ruby/eval.c,v
retrieving revision 1.924
diff -p -U 2 -r1.924 eval.c
--- eval.c	19 Jul 2006 13:52:03 -0000	1.924
+++ eval.c	20 Jul 2006 15:05:30 -0000
@@ -5805,2 +5805,3 @@ rb_call0(VALUE klass, VALUE recv, ID id,
 	    PUSH_SCOPE();
+	    ruby_frame->node = body;
 	    if (body->nd_rval) {


-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread