From: akr@... Date: 2018-05-17T08:21:44+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:87116] [Ruby trunk Misc#14760] cross-thread IO#close semantics Issue #14760 has been updated by akr (Akira Tanaka). I feel cross-thread IO#close is not reliable way to interrupt other threads. So, I implemented IO.copy_stream without concerning cross-thread IO#close. Since consistency is not a goal of Ruby, I think current behavior is acceptable. ---------------------------------------- Misc #14760: cross-thread IO#close semantics https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14760#change-72100 * Author: normalperson (Eric Wong) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) ---------------------------------------- I wrote about cross-thread IO#close in ruby-core, but I'm not sure if it's a bug or not to have missing support for IO.select and IO.copy_stream: IO.select - http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/86655 https://public-inbox.org/ruby-core/20180423133946.GA6019@dcvr/ IO.copy_stream - http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/87040 https://public-inbox.org/ruby-core/20180515095315.GA15909@dcvr/ I know the IO.select case in 1.9+ differs from 1.8, and IO.copy_stream wasn't in 1.8, but I guess the current behavior is that it isn't consistent with normal IO methods. IO.copy_stream will also behave "normally" and raise IOError if it somehow hits non-optimized cases and ends up calling Ruby methods, but my example in [ruby-core:87040] did not hit that case. On one hand, I'm not a fan of "nanny features" like deadlock detection for threading. On the other hand, I value consistency and we already went down the rabbit hole of supporting current users of rb_thread_io_blocking_region. Anyways, I can implement these if desired since I have additional work planned in this area anyways (auto-fiber). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: