[#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: Trace API bug

From: "Kent Sibilev" <ksruby@...>
Date: 2006-07-29 16:44:30 UTC
List: ruby-core #8439
Anyone?

On 7/21/06, Kent Sibilev <ksruby@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does this patch make any sense?
>
> Index: eval.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /src/ruby/eval.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.616.2.182
> diff -u -r1.616.2.182 eval.c
> --- eval.c      20 Jul 2006 07:04:14 -0000      1.616.2.182
> +++ eval.c      21 Jul 2006 05:02:24 -0000
> @@ -5837,8 +5837,14 @@
>         break;
>
>        case NODE_BMETHOD:
> -       ruby_frame->flags |= FRAME_DMETH;
> -       result = proc_invoke(body->nd_cval, rb_ary_new4(argc, argv),
> recv, klass);
> +        {
> +            struct BLOCK *data;
> +            ruby_frame->flags |= FRAME_DMETH;
> +            Data_Get_Struct(body->nd_cval, struct BLOCK, data);
> +            EXEC_EVENT_HOOK(RUBY_EVENT_CALL, data->body, recv, id, klass);
> +            result = proc_invoke(body->nd_cval, rb_ary_new4(argc,
> argv), recv, klass);
> +            EXEC_EVENT_HOOK(RUBY_EVENT_RETURN, body, recv, id, klass);
> +        }
>         break;
>
>        case NODE_SCOPE:
>
>
>
> On 7/20/06, Kent Sibilev <ksruby@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I've noticed a small bug while playing with my ruby-debug extension. I
> > think the current Ruby interpreter misses a 'call' event when calling
> > a method defined with Module#define_method. Below is the small script
> > that proves it:
> >
> > $ cat -n t.rb
> >      1  class A
> >      2    def m1
> >      3      "m1 called\n"
> >      4    end
> >      5    define_method("m2") do
> >      6      "m2 called\n"
> >      7    end
> >      8  end
> >      9
> >     10  a = A.new
> >     11  set_trace_func proc {|event, file, line, *args| puts "#{event}:#{line}"}
> >     12
> >     13  a.m1
> >     14  a.m2
> >     15
> > $ ruby t.rb
> > line:13
> > call:2
> > line:3
> > return:4
> > line:14
> > line:6
> >
> > Notice how the invocation of A#m2 doesn't emit any 'call' or 'c-call' events.
> >
> > --
> > Kent
> > ---
> > http://www.datanoise.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kent
> ---
> http://www.datanoise.com
>
>


-- 
Kent
---
http://www.datanoise.com

In This Thread