From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-05-01T18:36:01+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:02611] Re: linux-alpha/ccc / syntax

Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:02609] linux-alpha/ccc / syntax"
    on 00/04/30, Wes Nakamura <wknaka@pobox.com> writes:

|To get ruby 1.4.4 to compile with ccc, in eval.c line 726 in rb_eval's
|prototype, the NODE* must be changed to NODE* volatile; the same for
|line 732 in module_setup.  I believe this is also the case with 1.5.

From unknown reason, ccc does not allow volatile in function
arguments.  The code like below shut up ccc warnings.

  static VALUE
  rb_eval(self, n)
      VALUE self;
      NODE *n;
  {
      NODE * volatile node = n;

|Attempting to load a (shared object) module causes an unaligned trap
|followed by a segmentation violation.  Normally the kernel handles
|unaligned accesses gracefully, but in this case it doesn't.  I've traced
|it to do_entUnaUser in the kernel, which is supposed to handle the
|unaligned accesses, and apparently _dl_relocate_object, which appears to
|be in libc.  (glibc 2.1.1 in this case)

Extensions compiled by gcc seems to work fine.  Ruby compiled by ccc
can load extensions compiled by gcc.  Probably ccc requires some
option to be set to generate dynamic loadable object like -fPIC for
gcc.  Information is welcome.

|Well, now that I've got a working ccc-compiled ruby, is there a
|benchmark (rubystone? - nice name) to compare performance differences
|between the ccc and gcc compiled versions? 

I often use 

  time ./ruby sample/test.rb > /dev/null

I really like to see rubystone though.

|Also, I've got a syntax question.  Using () across multiple lines for
|method calls allows you to continue the parameter list without a \.
|However, it doesn't work for grouping/precedence.

Since parentheses can be used for group sentences, it is valid in
Ruby. 

  (print 5
   print "\n"
   55)

It works line

  begin
   print 5
   print "\n"
   55
  end

Making newlines in parentheses work like Python introduces minor
backward incompatibility.  Although I guess nobody use this syntax.

I think we should disscuss more before changing syntax.

							matz.