November 2025 - ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:117434] [Ruby master Bug#20409] Missing reporting some invalid breaks
by kddnewton (Kevin Newton) 13 May '26

13 May '26

Issue #20409 has been reported by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20409: Missing reporting some invalid breaks https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20409 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 12

[ruby-core:115241] [Ruby master Bug#19986] Win32: `HOME` is set to just `HOMEDRIVE` if `HOMEPATH` is unset
by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 11 May '26

11 May '26

Issue #19986 has been reported by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19986: Win32: `HOME` is set to just `HOMEDRIVE` if `HOMEPATH` is unset https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19986 * Author: nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 3.0: REQUIRED, 3.1: REQUIRED, 3.2: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- ``` $ env -u HOME -u USERPROFILE -u HOMEPATH HOMEDRIVE=no/such/home ./miniruby.exe -e 'p ENV["HOME"], Dir.home' "no/such/home" "no/such/home" ``` `HOMEDRIVE` should be ignored without `HOMEPATH`, and `HOME` should fallback to `CSIDL_PROFILE`. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 1

[ruby-core:118940] [Ruby master Bug#20696] `IO.read` ignores `err:` option
by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 11 May '26

11 May '26

Issue #20696 has been reported by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20696: `IO.read` ignores `err:` option https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20696 * Author: nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I expected the following code captures the error message, but `err:` option is ignored. ```shell-session $ ruby -e 'p IO.read("|ruby -e raise", err: %i[child out])' -e:1:in '<main>': unhandled exception "" ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 1

[ruby-core:116382] [Ruby master Feature#20205] Enable `frozen_string_literal` by default
by byroot (Jean Boussier) 14 Apr '26

14 Apr '26

Issue #20205 has been reported by byroot (Jean Boussier). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20205: Enable `frozen_string_literal` by default https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20205 * Author: byroot (Jean Boussier) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- ### Context The `frozen_string_literal: true` pragma was introduced in Ruby 2.3, and as far as I'm aware the plan was initially to make it the default for Ruby 3.0, but this plan was abandoned because it would be too much of a breaking change without any real further notice. According to Matz, he still wishes to enable `frozen_string_literal` by default in the future, but a reasonable migration plan is required. The main issue is backward compatibility, flipping the switch immediately would break a lot of code, so there must be some deprecation period. The usual the path forward for this kind of change is to emit deprecation warnings one of multiple versions in advance. One example of that was the Ruby 2.7 keyword argument deprecation. It was quite verbose, and some users were initially annoyed, but I think the community pulled through it and I don't seem to hear much about it anymore. So for frozen string literals, the first step would be to start warning when a string that would be frozen in the future is mutated. ### Deprecation Warning Implementation I implemented a quick proof of concept with @etienne in https://github.com/Shopify/ruby/pull/549 In short: - Files with `# frozen_string_literal: true` or `# frozen_string_literal: false` don't change in behavior at all. - Files with no `# frozen_string_literal` comment are compiled to use `putchilledstring` opcode instead of regular `putstring`. - This opcode mark the string with a user flag, when these strings are mutated, a warning is issued. Currently the proof of concept issue the warning at the mutation location, which in some case can make locating where the string was allocated a bit hard. But it is possible to improve it so the message also include the location at which the literal string was allocated, and learning from the keyword argument warning experience, we can record which warnings were already issued to avoid spamming users with duplicated warnings. As currently implemented, there is almost no overhead. If we modify the implementation to record the literal location, we'd incur a small memory overhead for each literal string in a file without an explicit `frozen_string_literal` pragma. But I believe we could do it in a way that has no overhead if `Warning[:deprecated] = false`. ### Timeline The migration would happen in 3 steps, each step can potentially last multiple releases. e.g. `R0` could be `3.4`, `R1` be `3.7` and `R2` be `4.0`. I don't have a strong opinion on the pace. - Release `R0`: introduce the deprecation warning (only if deprecation warnings enabled). - Release `R1`: make the deprecation warning show up regardless of verbosity level. - Release `R2`: make string literals frozen by default. ### Impact Given that `rubocop` is quite popular in the community and it has enforced the usage of `# frozen_string_literal: true` for years now, I suspect a large part of the actively maintained codebases in the wild wouldn't see any warnings. And with recent versions of `minitest` enabling deprecation warnings by default (and [potentially RSpec too](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/2867)) the few that didn't migrate will likely be made compatible quickly. The real problem of course are the less actively developed libraries and applications. For such cases, any codebase can remain compatible by setting `RUBYOPT="--disable=frozen_string_literal"`, and so even after `R2` release. The flag would never be removed any legacy codebase can continue upgrading Ruby without changing a single line of cod by just flipping this flag. ### Workflow for library maintainers As a library maintainer, fixing the deprecation warnings can be as simple as prepending `# frozen_string_literal: false` at the top of all their source files, and this will keep working forever. Alternatively they can of course make their code compatible with frozen string literals. Code that is frozen string literal compatible doesn't need to explicitly declare it. Only code that need it turned of need to do so. ### Workflow for application owners For application owners, the workflow is the same than for libraries. However if they depend on a gem that hasn't updated, or that they can't upgrade it, they can run their application with `RUBYOPT="--disable=frozen_string_literal"` and it will keep working forever. Any user running into an incompatibility issue can set `RUBYOPT="--disable=frozen_string_literal"` forever, even in `4.x`, the only thing changing is the default value. And any application for which all dependencies have been made fully frozen string literal compatible can set `RUBYOPT="--enable=frozen_string_literal"` and start immediately removing magic comment from their codebase. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

23 82

[ruby-core:123836] [Ruby Feature#21695] Optimizing Ruby performance with Ruby itself instead of Rust
by fredlinhares (Frederico Linhares) 10 Apr '26

10 Apr '26

Issue #21695 has been reported by fredlinhares (Frederico Linhares). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21695: Optimizing Ruby performance with Ruby itself instead of Rust https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21695 * Author: fredlinhares (Frederico Linhares) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I am using ERB on top of C for a game I am making now. We can use the tool to improve the productivity, memory safety, and runtime speed for Ruby. It can also replace a Rust JIT compiler for better results. The only problem is that it requires some level of manual memory management, while Rust does it all for you. If I demonstrate that it is better than Rust in practice, would you be willing to incorporate it into the Ruby language? I want to know because making it more generic will require more effort from me; if you are not interested, I won’t make the tool public. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 10

[ruby-core:123672] [Ruby Feature#21665] Revisit Object#deep_freeze to support non-Ractor use cases
by headius (Charles Nutter) 24 Mar '26

24 Mar '26

Issue #21665 has been reported by headius (Charles Nutter). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21665: Revisit Object#deep_freeze to support non-Ractor use cases https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21665 * Author: headius (Charles Nutter) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- ## Proposal: Introduce `Object#deep_freeze` (or similar name) to freeze an entire object graph I would like to re-propose the addition of Object#deep_freeze as a way to explicitly freeze an entire object graph. This proposal was rejected some years ago after being brought up in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17145. The proposal was rejected in favor of making Ractor-specific methods like Ractor.make_shareable. There are a number of reasons why I believe `deep_freeze` is still an important addition: * Rubyists have been requesting a way to deep freeze an object graph for many years (decades?), far longer than Ractor has existed. * Immutable objects are the safest way to safe concurrency, with or without parallel threading or Ractor. * In fact, deep freezing has utility *completely unrelated to concurrency*, such as to guarantee that a large graph of objects will not be modified in the future. * In the absence of `deep_freeze`, users have been forced to implement the behavior themselves, rely on third-party libraries, or call `Ractor.make_shareable` even if they never intend to use Ractor. * The existing `Ractor.make_shareable` primarily does a deep freeze internally. Given the steady move toward making immutability the norm in Ruby, it seems clear to me that deep freezing is a feature that is long overdue. ## Revisiting arguments for rejecting `deep_freeze`: A number of reasons were given in #17145 for preferring the `Ractor.make_shareable` method and rejecting `deep_freeze`. I address those here: @ko1: > One concern about the name "freeze" is, what happens on shareable objects on Ractors. > For example, Ractor objects are shareable and they don't need to freeze to send beyond Ractor boundary. As mentioned above, deep freezing has utility completely separate from Ractors and concurrency. It is a frequently-requested and very useful feature to add. I think we should treat this as a standalone feature, and treat enhancements for Ractors as a separate concern. @ko1: > I also want to introduce Mutable but shareable objects using STM (or something similar) writing protocol (shareable Hash). What happens on deep_freeze? Five years later, I believe this has not yet happened. A potential future optimization for Ractor should not be justification to reject a useful feature today. If users implement their code using primarily immutable objects now, it's unlikely that they will want those same objects to be mutable in the future (this applies to deep freezing as well as `make_shareable`). @eregon: > A dynamic call to freeze causes extra calls, and needs checks that it was indeed frozen. > So for efficiency I think it would be better to mark as frozen internally without a call to freeze on every value. I agree with the concerns about dynamic calls to freeze and overridden versions of the method. It may make more sense to implement this as a utility method, like `Object.deep_freeze(obj)` (a non-overridable class utility method). This is essentially what has been implemented within `Ractor.make_shareable` today. @ko1: > Maybe the author don't want to care about Ractor. > The author want to declare "I don't touch it". So "deep_freeze" is better. This was actually given as a justification for a `deep_freeze` method versus something like `Object#to_shareable`, and yet what we ended up with was a method that requires users know about Ractor. I believe there should be a `deep_freeze` method that has nothing to do with Ractor. And users on JRuby and TruffleRuby already can get full parallelism today without Ractor. They do not care about Ractor, but they definitely care about deep freezing. @eregon: > I don't like anything with "ractor" in the name, that becomes not descriptive of what it does and IMHO looks weird for e.g. gems not specifically caring about Ractor. This is a large part of my justification for revisiting this proposal. Users should not have to care about or want to use Ractor just so they can deep freeze an object graph, because it has utility far beyond Ractor. @ko1: > I implemented Object#deep_freeze(skip_shareable: false) for trial. > https://github.com/ko1/ruby/pull/new/deep_freeze There's already a prototype of this, though I suspect this logic essentially became `Ractor.make_shareable` in the end. I believe it would be acceptable to implement `Ractor.make_shareable` by calling `deep_freeze` since there's largely no difference in visible behavior (other than Ractor-specific optimizations like marking a whole graph as shareable). @eregon: > How about first having deep_freeze that just freezes everything (except an object's class)? This is a good proposal. I believe it is what 99% of users currently calling `make_shareable` actually want, and again there's utility well beyond Ractor and concurrency scenarios. @eregon: > So we could mark as deeply frozen first, and remember to undo that if we cannot freeze some object. > However, is there any object that cannot be frozen? I would think not. The majority of uses of `make_shareable` I have seen are called exactly once on a graph of objects. It does not seem to be typical to repeatedly call `make_shareable`. I understand the desire to have a `shareable` bit for Ractor optimization, but that is a *separate feature* from deep freezing an object graph. There are many cases where we will only call `deep_freeze` once to ensure a graph is fully frozen before publishing it for other code to see, and most of these cases will not try to re-deep-freeze that graph. Ractor's need to "double-check" shareability is orthogonal to the discussion about deep freezing and should not be justification for rejecting `deep_freeze`. @eregon brought up concerns about not calling the custom `freeze` method on user types, since they may want to eagerly cache some data. I believe that discussion is out of scope. `deep_freeze` would be defined to only free the objects that are directly walkable from a root object, and only setting frozen bits. A new overridable method could be introduced that `deep_freeze` would call if present, but otherwise it should just do fast-path object freeze flag setting. @marcandre: > Looking at def freeze in the top ~400 gems, I found 64 in sequel gem alone, and 28 definitions in the rest 😅. This comment provides a breakdown of custom `freeze` methods and the reasons they are implemented. Again, I believe this is out of scope for the discussion at hand. Forcing objects to "prepare for deep freezing" is a separate consideration that will be very library-specific, since every library may want to prepare in a different way. But they *all* want the ability to recursively mark objects as frozen, which is a runtime-level feature. @ko1: > We discussed about the name "deep_freeze", and Matz said deep_freeze should be only for freezing, not related to Ractor. So classes/module should be frozen if [C].deep_freeze. This is why I proposed a Object#deep_freeze(skip_shareable: true) and Ractor.make_shareable(obj). Avoiding classes and modules when deep freezing seems like a reasonable option to me. Naming could make this behavior clear, but again I believe 99% of users just want a plain old object `deep_freeze`. And this is again conflating two separate concerns: * deep freezing * marking an entire graph as shareable These are – and should be – two separate features. The deep freezing feature should not depend on setting shareability bits, since shareability is only meaningful in the context of Ractors. @ko1: > So naming issue is reamained? > > Object#deep_freeze (matz doesn't like it) > Object#deep_freeze(skip_sharable: true) (I don't know how Matz feel. And it is difficult to define Class/Module/... on skip_sharable: false) > Ractor.make_shareable(obj) (clear for me, but it is a bit long) > Ractor.shareable!(obj) (shorter. is it clear?) > Object#shareable! (is it acceptable?) > ... other ideas? I outline some alternatives below. ## Alternative forms: @matz didn't like `deep_freeze` five years ago. How do you feel about it now, @matz? Some alternatives with justification: * Object.deep_freeze(obj) This would make sense to avoid users being able to override the `deep_freeze` behavior, and would make it feel more like a global utility method with special behavior. * Object#freeze(obj, deep: true) * Object#freeze(obj, recursive: true) These work within the existing `freeze` method and still convey intent, but may break APIs that don't expect to receive keyword arguments. And there are some alternative names, which may work as either instance methods or class methods: * `freeze_recursive` * `freeze_all` * `freeze!` * `freeze_reachable_objects` (long but a variation of this might address concerns about not freezing classes and modules) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 8

[ruby-core:122558] [Ruby Bug#21446] StackOverflow when changing visibility in reopened refinement
by luke-gru (Luke Gruber) 24 Mar '26

24 Mar '26

Issue #21446 has been reported by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21446: StackOverflow when changing visibility in reopened refinement https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21446 * Author: luke-gru (Luke Gruber) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 3.5.0 * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ```ruby class A def a :a end end class B < A end module R refine B do private :a end end module R refine B do public :a end end using R B.new.a # StackOverflow ``` I would expect it to change the visibility, not to overflow the stack. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 4

[ruby-core:121642] [Ruby Bug#21266] YJIT GC safety crash with proc objects as block argument
by alanwu (Alan Wu) 23 Mar '26

23 Mar '26

Issue #21266 has been reported by alanwu (Alan Wu). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21266: YJIT GC safety crash with proc objects as block argument https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21266 * Author: alanwu (Alan Wu) * Status: Open * Assignee: yjit * Backport: 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- ```ruby # Run with --yjit-call-threshold=1 def foo(args) = bar(*args, &proc { _1 }) def bar(_, _, _, _, *rest) = yield rest GC.stress = true foo([1,2,3,4]) foo([1,2,3,4]) ``` The proc in these calls get collected on the yield to the GC to allocate the rest parameter arary. ``` ../vm_core.h:1668: Assertion Failed: vm_block_handler_type:rb_obj_is_proc(block_handler) ``` Or in release builds: ``` ../test.rb:1: [BUG] Segmentation fault at 0x0000000000000020 ruby 3.3.6 (2024-11-05 revision 75015d4c1f) +YJIT [arm64-darwin24] -- C level backtrace information ------------------------------------------- /Users/alan/.rubies/ruby-3.3.6/bin/ruby(rb_vm_bugreport+0xb4c) [0x104595590] /Users/alan/.rubies/ruby-3.3.6/bin/ruby(rb_bug_for_fatal_signal+0x100) [0x1043d6120] /Users/alan/.rubies/ruby-3.3.6/bin/ruby(sig_do_nothing+0x0) [0x1044fc4b0] /usr/lib/system/libsystem_platform.dylib(_sigtramp+0x38) [0x187572de4] /Users/alan/.rubies/ruby-3.3.6/bin/ruby(rb_vm_invokeblock+0x144) [0x10456b004] ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 3

[ruby-core:122847] [Ruby Feature#21520] Feature Proposal: Enumerator::Lazy#peek
by nuzair46 (Nuzair Rasheed) 17 Mar '26

17 Mar '26

Issue #21520 has been reported by nuzair46 (Nuzair Rasheed). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21520: Feature Proposal: Enumerator::Lazy#peek https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21520 * Author: nuzair46 (Nuzair Rasheed) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- # Abstract Add a #peek method to Enumerator::Lazy that allows observing each element in a lazy enumeration pipeline without modifying or consuming the stream. # Background Ruby provides Enumerator::Lazy for efficient lazy stream processing. However, unlike languages such as Java, it lacks a clean way to inspect intermediate elements during lazy evaluation. Currently, developers must misuse .map for side effects, example: ```rb (1..).lazy.map { |x| puts x; x }.select(&:even?).first(3) ``` This is semantically incorrect and confusing, since .map implies transformation, not observation. # Proposal Introduce Enumerator::Lazy#peek, which yields each item to a block and returns the item unmodified, similar to Object#tap, but in a lazy stream: ```rb (1..).lazy .peek { |x| puts "saw: #{x}" } .select(&:even?) .first(3) ``` This would be equivalent to: ```rb lazy.map { |x| block.call(x); x } ``` but with improved semantic clarity. # Use cases • Debugging lazy enumerators without breaking the chain • Logging or instrumentation in pipelines • Educational / demo use for showing lazy evaluation step-by-step • Cleaner replacement for map { puts x; x } hacks Example: ```rb data = (1..).lazy .peek { |x| puts "got #{x}" } .select(&:even?) .first(5) ``` result: ```rb got 1 got 2 got 3 got 4 got 5 ``` And return [2, 4, 6, 8, 10] # Discussion #peek is a minimal, non-breaking addition that improves clarity and idiomatic usage of Enumerator::Lazy. It avoids abusing .map for observation and is familiar to developers from other languages. #peek is also not needed for other enumerators where .tap or .each can do the job. It mirrors Java’s .stream().peek(...) and makes Ruby’s lazy enumeration more expressive and readable. # See also • [Java Stream.peek](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/stream/Str… I would be glad to work on this and make a PR. Thank you. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 14

[ruby-core:120819] [Ruby master Bug#21097] `x = a rescue b in c` and `def f = a rescue b in c` parsed differently between parse.y and prism
by tompng (tomoya ishida) 16 Mar '26

16 Mar '26

Issue #21097 has been reported by tompng (tomoya ishida). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21097: `x = a rescue b in c` and `def f = a rescue b in c` parsed differently between parse.y and prism https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21097 * Author: tompng (tomoya ishida) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.5.0dev (2025-01-27T08:19:32Z master c3c7300b89) +YJIT +MN +PRISM [arm64-darwin22] * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ~~~ruby x = a rescue b in c (x = (a rescue b)) in c # parse.y, prism(ruby 3.4) x = (a rescue (b in c)) # prism(ruby 3.5) ~~~ ~~~ruby def f = a rescue b in c #=> true(parse.y), :f(prism) (def f = (a rescue b)) in c # parse.y def f = (a rescue (b in c)) # prism ~~~ There is no difference between prism and parse.y parsing these codes ~~~ruby a rescue b in c # a rescue (b in c) x = a rescue b # x = (a rescue b) x = b in c # (x = b) in c def f = a rescue b # def f = (a rescue b) def f = b in c # (def f = a) in b ~~~ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

9 12