[#84867] [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults — v.ondruch@...
Issue #14357 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch).
11 messages
2018/01/15
[#85364] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/03
[email protected] wrote:
[#85368] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/03
Eric Wong wrote:
[#85442] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/06
Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
[#85451] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@...>
2018/02/06
On 02/06/2018 05:00 AM, Eric Wong wrote:
[#85455] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/06
Vladimir Makarov <[email protected]> wrote:
[#84874] [Ruby trunk Bug#14360] Regression CSV#open method for writing from Ruby 2.4.3 to 2.5.0 — shevegen@...
Issue #14360 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).
3 messages
2018/01/15
[#84980] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — hsbt@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
10 messages
2018/01/23
[#85012] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/23
[email protected] wrote:
[#85081] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/24
Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
[#85082] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/24
> Thinking about this even more; I don't think it's possible to
[#85088] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — danieldasilvaferreira@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by dsferreira (Daniel Ferreira).
3 messages
2018/01/25
[#85107] [Ruby trunk Misc#14222] Mutex.lock is not safe inside signal handler: what is? — eregontp@...
Issue #14222 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
3 messages
2018/01/25
[#85136] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
3 messages
2018/01/26
[ruby-core:85190] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2018-01-28 20:18:31 UTC
List:
ruby-core #85190
[email protected] wrote: > ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote: > > > I'm not sure we should limit to use them on Threadlet or not. > > > > 1. Threads and Threadlets can share same synchronization tools > > -> Good: no learning efforts > > -> Bad: People can cause sync issues with mis-using or missing syncs > > > 2. Introduce Threadlets special synchronization tools and introduce special rules communicate with other threads > > -> Good: people can only use good tools (such as Queues) > > -> Bad: we need to learn new tools and rules > > I'm all for (2) for the reasons I already mentioned: > > * Specially the big minus that we have in (1): "People can cause sync issues" > * Using only good tools is a big +. > * Not causing sync issues is a big ++. > * The fact that people will be forced to learn new tools and rules is also a big + for me. > * It draws the border between the old async scenario and the new one we are trying to implement. No, I'm against making major changes. For 2, I mean we limit usage to queues for now, which is a a subset of 1; but I'm also OK implementing mutex/condvar support for 1. Having less things to learn is better for adoption and improving usefulness > > If we think Threadlet is a special Thread (and the name indicates it), > then (1) seems nice for me. > > I agree `Threadlet` has that implication. > > Since we prefer to use names already in use in the async world > what about call it: > > **Lane** Too obscure and not obvious for me; do non-Lua people know about it? Terms such as process, thread, task, actor are already in wide use across several different languages; so it should be obvious. > * Lane meaning: a narrow road or division of a road When comparing to physical objects, it seems more appropriate for something like a channel or pipe. Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>
