From: shyouhei@... Date: 2018-12-26T01:24:41+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:90722] [Ruby trunk Bug#15460] Behaviour of String#setbyte changed Issue #15460 has been updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe). Apology for the previous comment. It shows IO#ungetbyte example. I confused them because I fixed them the same day for the same reason. The same thing happens for String#setbyte. ``` % ruby -v -e 'p "foo".setbyte(0,18446744073709551616)' ruby 1.9.3p551 (2014-11-13) [x86_64-darwin15.6.0] -e:1:in `setbyte': bignum too big to convert into `long' (RangeError) from -e:1:in `
' ``` ---------------------------------------- Bug #15460: Behaviour of String#setbyte changed https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15460#change-75899 * Author: gettalong (Thomas Leitner) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Target version: * ruby -v: ruby 2.6.0p0 (2018-12-25 revision 66547) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I just installed Ruby 2.6.0 for benchmarking reasons and found that the change [string.c: setbyte silently ignores upper bits](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby-trunk/repository/revisions/65804) broke my library/application HexaPDF. Before using String#setbyte I tested how it would respond to values lower than 0 or greater than 255 and found that it automatically performed the needed modulo 256 operation (at least up to Ruby 2.5.3). Therefore I left out the explicit modulo operation for performance reasons. Would it make sense to change the String#setbyte implementation to perform the modulo operation? This would restore compatibility with prior Ruby versions and may be what people would expect. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: