Hi Laurent, You used the term "block" below. I don't know enough about the code yet but I would assume that "block" means either a basic block or something between curly braces. Those entities do not have "ensure" -- (oh, gee, you used the term block here too...) Anyway. My thought / suggestions / question is perhaps making the things between curly braces simple and the things between "begin" and "end" (which can have ensure statements) more complex. The point is that curly braces come up much more often and keeping them simple and fast would be nice. I'm also worried that the use of exceptions to implement often used paths like "return" may be very expensive. Depending upon the implementation, exceptions can cost 0 for the non-exception case but the processing of an actually exception is very expensive. It would be nice if that cost would only be incurred in very rare cases. On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Laurent Sansonetti wrote:
I was planning to rewrite return-from-a-block today (or maybe tomorrow). The current SjLj-based implementation is not correct because it does not call ensure blocks, so I was thinking of using a specialized C++ exception instead, which should do the trick.
# This was a long-standing issue but yesterday night I found a use case where it's problematic: Mutex#synchronize won't unlock if return is called from it.
Normally with the new implementation we should be able to catch the specialized exception inside rb_vm_thread_run() and appropriately raise a LocalJumpError.
Thanks for your preliminary investigation on this!
Laurent
On Jul 9, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
The file is: ./spec/frozen/language/return_spec.rb
I don't know how to describe which one other than the first describe that starts "in a Thread"
Currently it does:
The return keyword in a Thread - raises a LocalJumpError if used to exit a threadSEGV recieved in SEGV handler unknown: [BUG] Segmentation fault
Perry Ease Software, Inc. ( http://www.easesoftware.com )
Low cost SATA Disk Systems for IBMs p5, pSeries, and RS/6000 AIX systems
On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Laurent Sansonetti wrote:
Hi Perry,
Which spec are you talking about specifically?
Laurent
On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:56 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
The spec says that a 'return' from a thread should raise a LocalJumpError.
Looking at the code for RETURN_NODE in compiler.cpp, the question of "Is this a thread" is never asked. And, I guess this exception is only for the top level block of the thread since a function called from the block could do a return.
I looked briefly at the Thread create process and I didn't see anything that flagged the block passed as the top level block for the thread.
The testcase causes a segmentation fault. I looked at the signal handler too and it appears as if it is "lets do this for now and address it later" code. The SEGV fault handler simply sets a flag and returns. The return will put us back where we were just at so we immediately seg fault again and then we do an exit -- with no core file.
I don't see the value of catching SEGV in the first place unless the underlying Ruby code has asked us to do that. I think that would generally apply to all signals.
Perry
_______________________________________________ MacRuby-devel mailing list MacRuby-devel@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel
_______________________________________________ MacRuby-devel mailing list MacRuby-devel@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel
_______________________________________________ MacRuby-devel mailing list MacRuby-devel@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel
_______________________________________________ MacRuby-devel mailing list MacRuby-devel@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel