December 2022 - ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:111518] [Ruby master Bug#15072] thread.c:4356:5: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ubf_list_atfork’
by normalperson (Eric Wong) 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Issue #15072 has been updated by normalperson (Eric Wong). Status changed from Open to Closed Fixed in #15130 ---------------------------------------- Bug #15072: thread.c:4356:5: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ubf_list_atfork’ https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15072#change-100886 * Author: duerst (Martin Dürst) * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal * Assignee: normalperson (Eric Wong) * ruby -v: ruby 2.6.0dev (2018-08-01 trunk 64156) [x86_64-cygwin] * Backport: 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- When compiling on cygwin, I get the following error: ``` compiling thread.c thread.c: In function ‘rb_thread_atfork_internal’: thread.c:4356:5: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ubf_list_atfork’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] ubf_list_atfork(); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ``` The `ubf_list_atfork` function was introduced by issue #15013 in r64485. The problem is that the function is defined *as static* in thread_pthread.c, but is used in thread.c. Not being an expert on threads, I thought that maybe `ubf_list_atfork` is a function that's available on some OSes, but that can't be the case. I only got empty results when searching for it. There's also a macro for `ubf_list_atfork` in thread_win32.c, but that doesn't seem to be related here. [below it says my Ruby version is trunk 64156, but I'm compiling on HEAD.] -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:111485] [Ruby master Bug#19279] Allow `Coverage.supported?` to recognize oneshot lines mode
by kevin-j-m (Kevin Murphy) 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Issue #19279 has been reported by kevin-j-m (Kevin Murphy). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19279: Allow `Coverage.supported?` to recognize oneshot lines mode https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19279 * Author: kevin-j-m (Kevin Murphy) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.2.0 (2022-12-25 revision a528908271) [x86_64-darwin22] * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Currently in Ruby 3.2.0, Coverage's new `supported?` method (introduced in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19026) does not recognize support for oneshot lines. Given that it is an available mode of coverage, I'm proposing that `Coverage.supported?` report that oneshot lines is supported. Current behavior: ``` bash ~|⇒ ruby -v ruby 3.2.0 (2022-12-25 revision a528908271) [x86_64-darwin22] ~|⇒ irb irb(main):001:0> require "coverage" => true irb(main):002:0> Coverage.supported?(:lines) => true irb(main):003:0> Coverage.supported?(:oneshot_lines) => false ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 6

[ruby-core:111508] Data support for versions before 3.2.0
by Eustáquio Rangel 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

I was wondering that every piece of code (gems, etc) that use the new Data object from now on will demand a mandatory upgrade to >= 3.2.0. It's a good thing upgrade the language versions, but often we can't do it for many reasons and would love to use the new code (updated or new gems) on our projects current versions. On the original Data PR I saw one of the reasons asking Data be a language feature and not a gem ("nobody will even try to use a gem for representing it with, unless the framework/library used already provides one"), I agree with that, but I'm curious if i there is any plan to support older language versions, like releasing a gem to mimic main Data features into older language versions and not force a mandatory upgrade to >= 3.2.0. I searched on rubygems but didn't find one like that. Btw, looks like what we had before with Fibers and Ractors, but seems to me Data will have an easier and faster adoption. Thanks.

2 2

[ruby-core:111491] [Ruby master Bug#19280] Wrong error message about arity of Data::define.new
by kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita) 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Issue #19280 has been reported by kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19280: Wrong error message about arity of Data::define.new https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19280 * Author: kyanagi (Kouhei Yanagita) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.3.0dev (2022-12-28T16:43:05Z master cada537040) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ``` $ ~/work/r/bin/ruby -e 'Data.define(:a, :b).new(1, 2, 3)' -e:1:in `new': wrong number of arguments (given 3, expected 0..2) (ArgumentError) Data.define(:a, :b).new(1, 2, 3) ^^^^^^^ from -e:1:in `<main>' ``` On this message, "expected 2" is appropriate because fewer arguments are not allowed. ``` $ ~/work/r/bin/ruby -e 'Data.define(:a, :b).new(1)' -e:1:in `initialize': missing keyword: :b (ArgumentError) Data.define(:a, :b).new(1) ^ from -e:1:in `new' from -e:1:in `<main>' ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 1

[ruby-core:111465] [Ruby master Bug#19273] [Regexp] regexp does not does not match expected
by taichi730 (Taichi Ishitani) 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Issue #19273 has been reported by taichi730 (Taichi Ishitani). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19273: [Regexp] regexp does not does not match expected https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19273 * Author: taichi730 (Taichi Ishitani) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.2.0 (2022-12-25 revision a528908271) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- A regexp pattern does not match expected with Ruby 3.2. Ruby 3.2 ``` ruby pattern = /(?-mix:(?i-mx:[+-]?0b[01](?:_?[01])*)|(?-mix:[+-]?(?:[1-9]_?(?:\d_?)*)?\d)|(?i-mx:[+-]?0x\h(?:_?\h)*))(?::(?-mix:(?i-mx:[+-]?0b[01](?:_?[01])*)|(?-mix:[+-]?(?:[1-9]_?(?:\d_?)*)?\d)|(?i-mx:[+-]?0x\h(?:_?\h)*))){0,3}/ "10:0:0".mathc(pattern) #=> #<MatchData "10"> "0:0:0".match(pattern) #=> #<MatchData "0:0:0"> ``` String "10.0.0" is only partially matched but not all of it. Ruby 3.1.0: ```ruby pattern = /(?-mix:(?i-mx:[+-]?0b[01](?:_?[01])*)|(?-mix:[+-]?(?:[1-9]_?(?:\d_?)*)?\d)|(?i-mx:[+-]?0x\h(?:_?\h)*))(?::(?-mix:(?i-mx:[+-]?0b[01](?:_?[01])*)|(?-mix:[+-]?(?:[1-9]_?(?:\d_?)*)?\d)|(?i-mx:[+-]?0x\h(?:_?\h)*))){0,3}/ "10:0:0".match(pattern) #=> #<MatchData "10:0:0"> "0:0:0".match(pattern) #=> #<MatchData "0:0:0"> ``` Both strings matches with the regexp wholy. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 7

[ruby-core:111438] [Ruby master Bug#19263] MJIT fails to compile multiple values in a single case in Ruby 3.2.0
by k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun) 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Issue #19263 has been reported by k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19263: MJIT fails to compile multiple values in a single case in Ruby 3.2.0 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19263 * Author: k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: DONTNEED, 3.0: DONTNEED, 3.1: DONTNEED, 3.2: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- ``` $ cat test.rb def test(a) case a when true, false a end end test(true) test(true) $ ruby --mjit-verbose=1 --mjit-wait --mjit-call-threshold=2 test.rb /tmp/_ruby_mjit_p237606u1.c: In function ‘_mjit0’: /tmp/_ruby_mjit_p237606u1.c:58:7: error: duplicate case value 58 | case 19: | ^~~~ compilation terminated due to -Wfatal-errors. Successful MJIT finish ``` I'd like to fix this in master and ask the branch maintainer to backport this to 3.2.1. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 2

[ruby-core:111502] [Ruby master Bug#19282] Regex error on ruby 3.2
by Sho (Shohei Nakano) 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Issue #19282 has been updated by Sho (Shohei Nakano). This issue is same with https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19283 and both I made. Would you remove this issue? ---------------------------------------- Bug #19282: Regex error on ruby 3.2 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19282#change-100868 * Author: Anonymous * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: 3.2.0 * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- There is an regex error pattern on ruby 3.2.0. This pattern is success on ruby 3.1.3. Is this a bug? Or, is ruby 3.2.0 correct? - ruby 3.2.0 ``` # ruby -v ruby 3.2.0 (2022-12-25 revision a528908271) [x86_64-linux] (byebug) MAX_CHAR_LENGTH = 8 8 (byebug) WHITE_SPACE_STR = '[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E' "[[:space:]]　\\uFEFF\\u00A0\\u200B\\u180E" (byebug) r = /\A((.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}x)|(.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}a[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]+b.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}))[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]*\Z/ix /\A((.{,8}x)|(.{,8}a[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]+b.{,8}))[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]*\Z/ix (byebug) r.match('a b') #<MatchData "a b" 1:"a b" 2:nil 3:"a b"> (byebug) MAX_CHAR_LENGTH = 9 9 (byebug) r = /\A((.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}x)|(.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}a[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]+b.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}))[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]*\Z/ix /\A((.{,9}x)|(.{,9}a[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]+b.{,9}))[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]*\Z/ix (byebug) r.match('a b') nil ``` - ruby 3.1.3 ``` ruby 3.1.3 # ruby -v ruby 3.1.3p185 (2022-11-24 revision 1a6b16756e) [x86_64-linux] (byebug) MAX_CHAR_LENGTH = 8 8 (byebug) WHITE_SPACE_STR = '[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E' "[[:space:]]　\\uFEFF\\u00A0\\u200B\\u180E" (byebug) r = /\A((.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}x)|(.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}a[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]+b.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}))[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]*\Z/ix /\A((.{,8}x)|(.{,8}a[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]+b.{,8}))[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]*\Z/ix (byebug) r.match('a b') #<MatchData "a b" 1:"a b" 2:nil 3:"a b"> (byebug) MAX_CHAR_LENGTH = 9 9 (byebug) r = /\A((.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}x)|(.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}a[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]+b.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}))[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]*\Z/ix /\A((.{,9}x)|(.{,9}a[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]+b.{,9}))[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]*\Z/ix (byebug) r.match('a b') #<MatchData "a b" 1:"a b" 2:nil 3:"a b"> ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:111500] [Ruby master Bug#19282] Regex error on ruby 3.2
by shohei.ein＠gmail.com (Shohei Nakano) 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Issue #19282 has been reported by shohei.ein(a)gmail.com (Shohei Nakano). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19282: Regex error on ruby 3.2 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19282 * Author: shohei.ein(a)gmail.com (Shohei Nakano) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: 3.2.0 * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- There is an regex error pattern on ruby 3.2.0. This pattern is success on ruby 3.1.3. Is this a bug? Or, is ruby 3.2.0 correct? - ruby 3.2.0 ``` # ruby -v ruby 3.2.0 (2022-12-25 revision a528908271) [x86_64-linux] (byebug) MAX_CHAR_LENGTH = 8 8 (byebug) WHITE_SPACE_STR = '[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E' "[[:space:]]　\\uFEFF\\u00A0\\u200B\\u180E" (byebug) r = /\A((.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}x)|(.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}a[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]+b.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}))[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]*\Z/ix /\A((.{,8}x)|(.{,8}a[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]+b.{,8}))[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]*\Z/ix (byebug) r.match('a b') #<MatchData "a b" 1:"a b" 2:nil 3:"a b"> (byebug) MAX_CHAR_LENGTH = 9 9 (byebug) r = /\A((.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}x)|(.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}a[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]+b.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}))[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]*\Z/ix /\A((.{,9}x)|(.{,9}a[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]+b.{,9}))[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]*\Z/ix (byebug) r.match('a b') nil ``` - ruby 3.1.3 ``` ruby 3.1.3 # ruby -v ruby 3.1.3p185 (2022-11-24 revision 1a6b16756e) [x86_64-linux] (byebug) MAX_CHAR_LENGTH = 8 8 (byebug) WHITE_SPACE_STR = '[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E' "[[:space:]]　\\uFEFF\\u00A0\\u200B\\u180E" (byebug) r = /\A((.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}x)|(.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}a[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]+b.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}))[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]*\Z/ix /\A((.{,8}x)|(.{,8}a[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]+b.{,8}))[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]*\Z/ix (byebug) r.match('a b') #<MatchData "a b" 1:"a b" 2:nil 3:"a b"> (byebug) MAX_CHAR_LENGTH = 9 9 (byebug) r = /\A((.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}x)|(.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}a[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]+b.{,#{MAX_CHAR_LENGTH}}))[#{WHITE_SPACE_STR}]*\Z/ix /\A((.{,9}x)|(.{,9}a[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]+b.{,9}))[[[:space:]]　\uFEFF\u00A0\u200B\u180E]*\Z/ix (byebug) r.match('a b') #<MatchData "a b" 1:"a b" 2:nil 3:"a b"> ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:111498] [Ruby master Bug#18743] Enumerator#next / peek re-use each others stacktraces
by marcper (Marcelo Pereira) 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Issue #18743 has been updated by marcper (Marcelo Pereira). Good evening, @matz. The PR with the bug fix is available now for a few months. Please advise on the next steps. ---------------------------------------- Bug #18743: Enumerator#next / peek re-use each others stacktraces https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18743#change-100867 * Author: sos4nt (Stefan Schüßler) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I encountered an odd behavior. If I rescue the `StopIteration` exception from `peek` and call `next` afterwards: (or vice-versa) ```ruby # enum.rb # 1 # 2 enum = [].each # 3 enum.peek rescue nil # 4 enum.next # 5 ``` it will show the stacktrace from the rescued `peek` call: ``` $ ruby enum.rb enum.rb:4:in `peek': iteration reached an end (StopIteration) from enum.rb:4:in `<main>' ``` Whereas the error should refer to `next` on line number 5. The same happens when calling `peek` after `next` or when having muliple `peek` / `next` calls: ```ruby # enum.rb # 1 # 2 enum = [].each # 3 enum.peek rescue nil # 4 enum.next rescue nil # 5 enum.peek rescue nil # 6 puts "line #{__LINE__}" # 7 enum.next # 8 ``` The stacktrace from the first (rescued) `peek` or `next` call will be shown which doesn't reflect the actual error location: ``` $ ruby enum.rb line 7 enum.rb:4:in `peek': iteration reached an end (StopIteration) from enum.rb:4:in `<main>' ``` This is very confusing when debugging code. ---Files-------------------------------- 01-Recreate-stacktrace-enumerator.patch (1.29 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:111482] [Ruby master Feature#19277] Project-scoped refinements
by georgeclaghorn (George Claghorn) 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Issue #19277 has been reported by georgeclaghorn (George Claghorn). ---------------------------------------- Feature #19277: Project-scoped refinements https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19277 * Author: georgeclaghorn (George Claghorn) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Refinements are a great way to isolate patches to the files that rely on them. Nonetheless, I believe the need to explicitly enable refinements in every file that uses them has hindered their adoption. As an inciting example, it’s hard to imagine Rails adopting refinements in their current form and requiring `using` calls for Active Support core extensions throughout Rails applications. I’d like to propose a middle way: allowing a Ruby project (a gem, library, application, etc.) to enable refinements for all of its Ruby files. This would combine the isolation benefits of refinements with the convenience of global monkey-patches. #### Projects To do this, we must decide how to identify projects and how they specify their desired refinements. A Ruby project is a directory containing a project configuration file with a special name. (I am intentionally not proposing a specific name for the file here. One will need to be chosen eventually, and suggestions are welcome.) A project configuration file is in Ruby format. When Ruby loads a script from a file, it searches upwards from the current directory for a project configuration file. For reasons of performance, project configurations may be cached by project root path. The search for a project configuration would end when a configuration for a particular path prefix is found in the cache. When a project configuration is found, it is evaluated as though it were prepended to the beginning of the currently-loading file. Alternatively, a limited DSL could be provided to the configuration file that prepares interpreter state for the currently-loading file. Below is an example project configuration: ```ruby require "prestige/refinements" using Prestige::Refinements ``` For `ruby -e` and `irb`, the project configuration is searched for beginning from the current working directory. For `Kernel#eval`, the current file’s project configuration is used. #### Concerns * Performance, mainly. This is a significant amount of work to add to hot code paths. I believe the cost could be minimized with sensible caching, though not completely eliminated. I haven’t started implementing this and don’t have measurements of the actual cost yet. * Ergonomics. Is this the best way to provide project-scoped refinements? Is the project configuration format appropriate? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 2