[#796] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...>

> [email protected] wrote:

33 messages 2003/02/06
[#798] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/06

Hi,

[#826] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/10

> |I have read the thread and I think this is a pretty bad change. I

[#827] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/10

Hi,

[#828] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/11

> > #BEGIN test.rb

[#829] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/11

Hi,

[#830] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/11

> |What was wrong with having the receiver set the return value though?

[#834] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Matt Armstrong <matt@...> 2003/02/11

Sean Chittenden <[email protected]> writes:

[#835] Re: value of assignment (Re: Order of the value of an expression changed? (PR#579)) — Sean Chittenden <sean@...> 2003/02/11

> > f = Foo.new()

[#801] class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@...

Hi --

31 messages 2003/02/07
[#802] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — nobu.nokada@... 2003/02/07

Hi,

[#803] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#804] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/02/07

Hi,

[#805] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#806] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2003/02/07

[#807] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Matt Armstrong <matt@...> 2003/02/07

J.Herre <[email protected]> writes:

[#808] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#809] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/02/07

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:52:17 +0900

[#810] Re: class of $1, $2 in 1.8.0 — dblack@... 2003/02/07

Hi --

[#889] Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...>

16 messages 2003/02/28
[#892] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — ts <decoux@...> 2003/03/01

>>>>> "M" == Mauricio Fern疣dez <Mauricio> writes:

[#893] Re: Bob Jenkins' hashing implementation in Ruby — Mauricio Fern疣dez <batsman.geo@...> 2003/03/01

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 08:42:40PM +0900, ts wrote:

Re: Alternate GC ?

From: Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@...>
Date: 2003-02-11 19:19:34 UTC
List: ruby-core #852
On 12.02 04:01, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> I think I recall that Ruby 1.8 was supposed to get a new garbage
> collector. It appears not to be the case. However, I wonder whether
> there's a patch that I could apply to Ruby (1.6.8 or 1.8.0) that would
> improve the "realtimeness" of Ruby in any way. Specifically, I mean
> anything that would make the worst-case duration of a GC interruption
> smaller.

There exists a patch which implements a non-copying generational GC 
for ruby. But the patch[1] is quite old (1.4.4). The code looks 
quite easy to understand and porting it to 1.8 should be possible.
"Ruby Hacking Guide" (a japanese book) has apparently some 
information on the topic too. Ruby's own GC is very clean code so it
should provide you with enough information about the interfaces.

However you need to be aware that realtime and generational GC are for
different purposes. A generational GC reduces the average time it takes
to sweep, while a real time collector makes guarantees about the
worst-case. I haven't heard of any real-time collector for Ruby.

I don't know what happened to the 1.8 generational GC plan, maybe
someone more knowledgeable would like to enlighten us.

1) http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-dev/9990

- Einar Karttunen

In This Thread