[#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 2003

From: Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
Date: 2006-07-23 00:01:23 UTC
List: ruby-core #8361
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607221126100.30944@localhost.localdomain>,
  Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> writes:

> All versions of Ruby, up to some early 1.9, may perform an incomplete 
> mark, due to assuming that the system call-stack is empty at the moment 
> ruby_init is called. Then the sweep deletes objects still in use, which by 
> chain reaction corrupts memory, leads to segfaults, bus errors, unknown 
> node types, failed assertions, and various other forms of suicide.

It seems about calling RUBY_INIT_STACK in main.c

> IIRC, the solution implemented in ruby 1.9 involves a fair amount of 
> ifdefs and platform-specific code because there's no standard way to get 
> stack-end information via system headers or system functions. Over the 
> years, my program has included various ways to detect the stack-end and 
> tell Ruby about it, but recent versions of ruby do it much better (all my 
> tricks have failed mysteriously. i suspect changes in glibc and gcc to be 
> related, but that's beyond my level.)

But RUBY_INIT_STACK doesn't contain ifdefs except for ia64.

So I'm not certain what code should be backported.
-- 
Tanaka Akira

In This Thread