[#84867] [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults — v.ondruch@...
Issue #14357 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch).
11 messages
2018/01/15
[#85364] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/03
v.ondruch@tiscali.cz wrote:
[#85368] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/03
Eric Wong wrote:
[#85442] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/06
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#85451] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@...>
2018/02/06
On 02/06/2018 05:00 AM, Eric Wong wrote:
[#84874] [Ruby trunk Bug#14360] Regression CSV#open method for writing from Ruby 2.4.3 to 2.5.0 — shevegen@...
Issue #14360 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).
3 messages
2018/01/15
[#84980] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — hsbt@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
10 messages
2018/01/23
[#85012] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/23
hsbt@ruby-lang.org wrote:
[#85081] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/24
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#85082] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/24
> Thinking about this even more; I don't think it's possible to
[#85088] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — danieldasilvaferreira@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by dsferreira (Daniel Ferreira).
3 messages
2018/01/25
[#85107] [Ruby trunk Misc#14222] Mutex.lock is not safe inside signal handler: what is? — eregontp@...
Issue #14222 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
3 messages
2018/01/25
[#85136] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
samuel@oriontransfer.org wrote:
3 messages
2018/01/26
[ruby-core:85304] [Ruby trunk Bug#13952] String#succ not updating code range
From:
usa@...
Date:
2018-01-31 13:30:21 UTC
List:
ruby-core #85304
Issue #13952 has been updated by usa (Usaku NAKAMURA).
Backport changed from 2.3: REQUIRED, 2.4: DONE to 2.3: DONE, 2.4: DONE
ruby_2_3 r62139 merged revision(s) 60066.
----------------------------------------
Bug #13952: String#succ not updating code range
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13952#change-70084
* Author: nirvdrum (Kevin Menard)
* Status: Closed
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* Target version:
* ruby -v: ruby 2.4.2p198 (2017-09-14 revision 59899) [x86_64-linux]
* Backport: 2.3: DONE, 2.4: DONE
----------------------------------------
I'm seeing some strange behavior with `String#succ` and updating code ranges. I haven't yet traced the code to see what the culprit is, but I'm reproducing my findings here so they don't get lost (and maybe someone has a better idea of what's going on.)
This sequence of calls produces the expected output.
```
x = "\xFF".force_encoding("binary")
y = x.succ
z = String.new
z << 0x01 << 0x00
puts "x ASCII-only?: #{x.ascii_only?}"
puts "y ASCII-only?: #{y.ascii_only?}"
puts "z ASCII-only?: #{z.ascii_only?}"
puts "y Encoding: #{y.encoding}"
puts "y Bytes: #{y.bytes}"
puts "z Encoding: #{z.encoding}"
puts "z Bytes: #{z.bytes}"
```
The output is:
```
x ASCII-only?: false
y ASCII-only?: true
z ASCII-only?: true
y Encoding: ASCII-8BIT
y Bytes: [1, 0]
z Encoding: ASCII-8BIT
z Bytes: [1, 0]
```
However, by inserting a call that would force `x` to calculate its code range prior to the `String#succ` call, we get a different set of results:
```
x = "\xFF".force_encoding("binary")
x.ascii_only?
y = x.succ
z = String.new
z << 0x01 << 0x00
puts "x ASCII-only?: #{x.ascii_only?}"
puts "y ASCII-only?: #{y.ascii_only?}"
puts "z ASCII-only?: #{z.ascii_only?}"
puts "y Encoding: #{y.encoding}"
puts "y Bytes: #{y.bytes}"
puts "z Encoding: #{z.encoding}"
puts "z Bytes: #{z.bytes}"
```
Now we see that `y` isn't considered to be ASCII-only, even though it has the exact same encoding and byte sequence as `z` (and as `y` in the previous call sequence that did work):
```
x ASCII-only?: false
y ASCII-only?: false
z ASCII-only?: true
y Encoding: ASCII-8BIT
y Bytes: [1, 0]
z Encoding: ASCII-8BIT
z Bytes: [1, 0]
```
Having not looked at it, it looks like the code range isn't updated and we only get the correct result if `CR_UNKNOWN` hasn't been replaced by some other call that needs the code range.
--
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>