[#407] New feature for Ruby? — Clemens.Hintze@...
Hi all,
27 messages
1999/07/01
[#413] Re: New feature for Ruby?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
1999/07/01
Hi Clemens,
[#416] Re: New feature for Ruby?
— Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
1999/07/01
On Thu, 01 Jul 1999, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#418] Re: New feature for Ruby?
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
1999/07/01
Hi
[#426] Re: New feature for Ruby?
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
1999/07/02
Hi,
[#427] Re: New feature for Ruby?
— Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
1999/07/02
On Fri, 02 Jul 1999, you wrote:
[#428] Re: New feature for Ruby?
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
1999/07/03
Hi,
[#429] Re: New feature for Ruby?
— Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
1999/07/03
On Sat, 03 Jul 1999, you wrote:
[#430] Re: New feature for Ruby?
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
1999/07/05
Hi,
[#431] Re: New feature for Ruby?
— Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
1999/07/07
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999, you wrote:
[#440] Now another totally different ;-) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
Hi,
21 messages
1999/07/09
[#441] Re: Now another totally different ;-)
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
1999/07/09
Hi,
[#442] Re: Now another totally different ;-)
— Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
1999/07/09
On Fri, 09 Jul 1999, you wrote:
[#452] Re: Now another totally different ;-)
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
1999/07/11
Hi,
[#462] Re: Now another totally different ;-)
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
1999/07/12
Hello, there.
[#464] Re: Now another totally different ;-)
— Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
1999/07/12
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, you wrote:
[#467] Re: Now another totally different ;-)
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
1999/07/12
Hi,
[#468] Re: Now another totally different ;-)
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
1999/07/12
In message "[ruby-talk:00467] Re: Now another totally different ;-)"
[#443] — Michael Hohn <hohn@...>
Hello,
26 messages
1999/07/09
[#444] interactive ruby, debugger
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
1999/07/09
Hi Michael,
[#448] Re: interactive ruby, debugger
— "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>
1999/07/10
Hi,
[#450] Re: interactive ruby, debugger
— Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
1999/07/10
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999, you wrote:
[#490] Some questions concerning GC in Ruby extensions — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
Hi matz,
6 messages
1999/07/14
[#501] Ruby 1.3.5 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Ruby 1.3.5 is out, check out:
1 message
1999/07/15
[#519] CGI.rb — "Michael Neumann" <neumann@...>
Hi...
7 messages
1999/07/24
[#526] Another way for this? And a new proposal! — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
Hi,
6 messages
1999/07/25
[ruby-talk:00499] Re: Ruby's GC (Re: Some questions concerning GC in Ruby extensions)
From:
Shugo Maeda <shugo@...>
Date:
1999-07-15 01:27:47 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #499
Hi,
At Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:39:21 +0200,
Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@gmx.net> wrote:
> I have assumed, you use the Bohem's GC. Why not?
Bohem's GC _was_ unstable....
> Does the GC only collect data, which are some kind of Ruby object?
Yes, and I think it's nice.
# Because Ruby's GC is not GC for C language.
> while (<some condition>) {
> buf = ALLOC_N(char, 12);
> strcpy(buf, "hello");
> gc_start();
> }
You should call free() to avoid memory leak:-(
> Is here the memory pointed by `buf' safe? Or will I need a
> function like that:
>
> void mark_buf(strp)
> struct string *strp;
> {
> rb_gc_mark(strp->buf);
> }
There is no need to mark buf because buf is not a Ruby object:-)
> Will the memory pointed by `buf' be deleted during GC? Or have I to
> implement a `free_string' method like that:
>
> void free_string(strp)
> struct string *strp;
> {
> free(strp->buf);
> strp->size = 0; /* Okay! paranoid. */
> }
Yes.
# And you should free strp itself too.
> >memory allocator gives up allocation, raises Fatail error.
>
> But that happens only if I use `xmalloc'. My question was, if my
> extension use `malloc' directly, and report back to me, that there
> was no enough memory available. Should I raise an fatal error then,
> or what kind of error you would raise?
Maybe, you should raise a fatal error.
# But why don't you use xmalloc()?
Shugo