[#83096] File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?}) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
On 2017/10/04 8:47, normal@ruby-lang.org wrote:
5 messages
2017/10/04
[#83100] Re: File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?})
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/10/04
Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#83105] Re: File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?})
— Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
2017/10/04
On 2017/10/04 15:55, Eric Wong wrote:
[#83107] Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes? — Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
Hello,
9 messages
2017/10/04
[#83113] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— "Urabe, Shyouhei" <shyouhei@...>
2017/10/05
This has been requested countless times, then rejected each and every time.
[#83129] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
2017/10/05
Sorry I didn't found it on the core mail list's archive.
[#83138] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— "Urabe, Shyouhei" <shyouhei@...>
2017/10/06
Ruby has not been made of popular votes so far. You have to show us
[#83149] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/10/06
Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@gmail.com> wrote:
[#83200] [Ruby trunk Feature#13996] [PATCH] file.c: apply2files releases GVL — normalperson@...
Issue #13996 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
4 messages
2017/10/10
[ruby-core:83300] [Ruby trunk Bug#13163] Uncaught exceptions may not be reported when Thread#report_on_exception=true and Thread#abort_on_exception=true
From:
eregontp@...
Date:
2017-10-15 17:50:06 UTC
List:
ruby-core #83300
Issue #13163 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). Backport changed from 2.2: DONTNEED, 2.3: REQUIRED, 2.4: REQUIRED to 2.2: DONTNEED, 2.3: DONTNEED, 2.4: REQUIRED I believe we only need a 2.4 backport, Thread#report_on_exception is only defined from Ruby 2.4+. ---------------------------------------- Bug #13163: Uncaught exceptions may not be reported when Thread#report_on_exception=true and Thread#abort_on_exception=true https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13163#change-67259 * Author: tagomoris (Satoshi TAGOMORI) * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal * Assignee: nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) * Target version: * ruby -v: * Backport: 2.2: DONTNEED, 2.3: DONTNEED, 2.4: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- When we set true on both of `Thread#report_on_exception` and `Thread#abort_on_exception`, it just works as `Thread#abort_on_exception` and raised error will be re-raised in main thread. But in our case, main thread sometimes in `begin`-`rescue` clause, or sometimes out of `begin`-`rescue` clause. When main thread in `begin`-`rescue` clause (and main thread code may raise errors in their own business), we cannot know that threads are dead by errors. What I expected by specifying both of `Thread#report_on_exception=true` and `Thread#abort_on_exception=true`: * "Thread terminated with exception" is reported always (even if `Thread#abort_on_exception` is set) * Raised error is re-raised in main thread if `Thread#abort_on_exception` is true How do you think about this idea? -- 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>