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

[ruby-core:124270] [Ruby Bug#21787] `IO::Buffer` buffer overf
by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 04 Apr '26

04 Apr '26

Issue #21787 has been reported by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21787: `IO::Buffer` buffer overf https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21787 * Author: nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 3

[ruby-core:120488] [Ruby master Feature#21005] Update the source location method to include line start/stop and column start/stop details
by bkuhlmann (Brooke Kuhlmann) 01 Apr '26

01 Apr '26

Issue #21005 has been reported by bkuhlmann (Brooke Kuhlmann). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21005: Update the source location method to include line start/stop and column start/stop details https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21005 * Author: bkuhlmann (Brooke Kuhlmann) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- ## Why 👋 Hello. After discussing with Kevin Newton and Benoit Daloze in [Feature 20999](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20999), I'd like to propose adding line start/stop and column start/stop information to the `#source_location` method for the following objects: - [Binding](https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/Binding.html) - [Proc](https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/Proc.html) - [Method](https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/Method.html) - [UnboundMethod](https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/UnboundMethod.html) At the moment, when using `#source_location`, you only get the following information: ``` ruby def demo = "A demonstration." # From disk. method(:demo).source_location # ["/Users/bkuhlmann/Engineering/Misc/demo", 15] # From memory. method(:demo).source_location # ["(irb)", 3] ``` Notice, when asking for the source location, we only get the path/location as the first element and the line number as the second element but I'd like to obtain a much richer set of data which includes line start/stop and column start/stop so I can avoid leaning on the `RubyVM` for this information. Example: ``` ruby def demo = "A demonstration." # From disk. instructions = RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of method(:demo) puts [instructions.absolute_path, *instructions.to_a.dig(4, :code_location)] [ "/Users/bkuhlmann/Engineering/Misc/demo", # Source path. 15, # Line start. 0, # Column start. 15, # Line stop. 29 # Column stop. ] # From memory. instructions = RubyVM::InstructionSequence.of method(:demo) puts instructions.script_lines [ "def demo = \"A demonstration.\"\n", "" ] ``` By having access to the path (or lack thereof in case of IRB), line start/stop, and column start/stop, this means we could avoid using the RubyVM to obtain raw source code for any of these objects. This would not only enhance debugging situations but also improve Domain Specific Languages that wish to leverage this information for introducing new features and/or new debugging capabilities to the language. ## How Building upon the examples provided above, I'd like to see `Binding`, `Proc`, `Method`, and `UnboundMethod` respond to `#source_location` as follows: ``` ruby [ "/Users/bkuhlmann/Engineering/Misc/demo", # Source path. 15, # Line start. 15, # Line stop. 0, # Column start. 29 # Column stop. ] ``` Notice, for data grouping purposes, I changed the array structure to always start with the path as the first element, followed by line information, and ending with column information. Alternatively, it could might be nice to improve upon the above by answering a hash each time, instead, for a more self-describing data structure. Example: ``` ruby { path: "/Users/bkuhlmann/Engineering/Misc/demo", line_start: 15, line_stop: 15, column_start: 0, column_stop: 29 } ``` For in-memory, situations like IRB, it would be nice to answer the equivalent of `RubyVM::InstructionSequence#script_lines` which would always be an `Array` with no line or column information since only the source code is necessary. Example: ``` ruby [ "def demo = \"A demonstration.\"\n", "" ] ``` From a pattern matching perspective, this could provide the best of both worlds especially if information is answered as either a `Hash` or and `Array`. Example: ``` def demo = "A demonstration." case method(:demo).source_location in Hash then puts "Source information obtained from disk." in Array then puts "Source obtained from memory." else fail TypeError, "Unrecognized source location type." end ``` This above is only a simple example but there's a lot we could do with this information if the above pattern match was enhanced to deal with the extraction and formatting of the actual source code! ## Notes This feature request is related to the following discussions in case more context is of help: - [Feature 6012](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6012) - [Feature 20999](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20999) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

8 20

[ruby-core:117658] [Ruby master Feature#20448] Make coverage event hooking C API public
by ms-tob (Matt S) 27 Mar '26

27 Mar '26

Issue #20448 has been reported by ms-tob (Matt S). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20448: Make coverage event hooking C API public https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20448 * Author: ms-tob (Matt S) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- # Abstract Gathering code coverage information is a well-known goal within software engineering. It is most commonly used to assess code coverage during automated testing. A lesser known use-case is coverage-guided fuzz testing, which will be the primary use-case presented in this issue. This issue exists to request that Ruby coverage event hooking be made part of its official, public C API. # Background Ruby currently provides a number of avenues for hooking events *or* gathering coverage information: 1. The [Coverage](https://ruby-doc.org/3.3.0/exts/coverage/Coverage.html) module 2. The [TracePoint](https://ruby-doc.org/3.3.0/TracePoint.html) module 3. The [rb_add_event_hook](https://ruby-doc.org/3.3.0/extension_rdoc.html#label-Hoo… extension function Unfortunately, none of these pieces of functionality solve this issue's specific use-case. The `Coverage` module is not a great fit for real-time coverage analysis with an unknown start and stop point. Coverage-guided fuzz testing requires this. The `TracePoint` module and `rb_add_event_hook` are not able to hook branch and line coverage events. Coverage-guided fuzz testing typically tracks branch events. # Proposal The ultimate goal is to enable Ruby C extensions to process coverage events in real-time. I did some cursory investigation into the Ruby C internals to determine what it would take to achieve this, but I'm by no means an expert, so my list may be incomplete. The good news is that much of this functionality already exists, but it's part of the private, internal-only C API. 1. Make `RUBY_EVENT_COVERAGE_LINE` and `RUBY_EVENT_COVERAGE_BRANCH` public: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/v3_3_0/vm_core.h#L2182-L2184 a. This would be an addition to the current public event types: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/v3_3_0/include/ruby/internal/event.h#L32-… 2. Allow initializing global coverage state so that coverage tracking can be fully enabled a. Currently, if `Coverage.setup` or `Coverage.start` is not called, then coverage events cannot be hooked. I do not fully understand why this is, but I believe it has something to do with `rb_get_coverages` and `rb_set_coverages`. If calls to `rb_get_coverages` return `NULL` (https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/v3_3_0/iseq.c#L641-L647, https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/v3_3_0/iseq.c#L864-L868) then coverage hooking will not be enabled. I believe the `Coverage` module initializes that state via a `rb_set_coverages` call here: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/v3_3_0/ext/coverage/coverage.c#L112-L120. b. So, to achieve this goal, a C extension would need to be able to call `rb_set_coverages` or somehow initialize the global coverage state. I've actually been able to achieve this functionality by calling undocumented features and defining `RUBY_EVENT_COVERAGE_BRANCH`: ```c #include <ruby.h> #include <ruby/debug.h> #define RUBY_EVENT_COVERAGE_BRANCH 0x020000 // ... rb_event_flag_t events = RUBY_EVENT_COVERAGE_BRANCH; rb_event_hook_flag_t flags = ( RUBY_EVENT_HOOK_FLAG_SAFE | RUBY_EVENT_HOOK_FLAG_RAW_ARG ); rb_add_event_hook2( (rb_event_hook_func_t) event_hook_branch, events, counter_hash, flags ); ``` If I call `Coverage.setup(branches: true)`, and add this event hook, then branch hooking works as expected. `rb_add_event_hook2` will still respect the `RUBY_EVENT_COVERAGE_BRANCH` value if its passed. But it would be better if I could rely on official functionality rather than undocumented features. The above two points would be requirements for this functionality, but there's an additional nice-to-have: 3. Extend the public `tracearg` functionality to include additional coverage information a. Currently, `tracearg` offers information like `rb_tracearg_lineno` and `rb_tracearg_path`. It would be helpful if it also provided additional coverage information like `coverage.c`'s column information and a unique identifier for each branch. Currently, I can only use `(path, lineno)` as a unique identifier for a branch because that's what's offered by the public API, but more information like column number would be helpful for uniquely identify branches. Since there can be multiple `if` statements on a single line, this can provide ambiguous identification for a branch event. # Use cases This use-case was born out of a new coverage-guided Ruby fuzzer: https://github.com/trailofbits/ruzzy. You can read more about its implementation details here: https://blog.trailofbits.com/2024/03/29/introducing-ruzzy-a-coverage-guided…. You can also find the Ruby C extension code behind its implementation here: https://github.com/trailofbits/ruzzy/blob/v0.7.0/ext/cruzzy/cruzzy.c#L220-L…. So, the primary use-case here is enabling real-time, coverage-guided fuzz testing of Ruby code. However, as mentioned in the abstract, gathering code coverage information is useful in many domains. For example, it could enable new workflows in standard unit/integration test coverage. It could also enable gathering coverage information in real-time as an application is running. I see this as the most generalized form of gathering code coverage information, and something like the `Coverage` module as a specialized implementation. Another example, https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20282 may be solved by this more generalized solution. We are tracking this request downstream here: https://github.com/trailofbits/ruzzy/issues/9 # Discussion Fuzz testing is another tool in a testers toolbelt. It is an increasingly common way to improve software's robustness. Go has it built in to the standard library, Python has Atheris, Java has Jazzer, JavaScript has Jazzer.js, etc. OSS-Fuzz has helped identify and fix over 10,000 vulnerabilities and 36,000 bugs [using fuzzing](https://google.github.io/oss-fuzz/#trophies). Ruby deserves a good fuzzer, and improving coverage gathering would help achieve that goal. The `Coverage` module, `TracePoint` module, and `rb_add_event_hook` function seem like they could fulfill this goal. However, after deeper investigation, none of them fit the exact requirements for this use-case. # See also - https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20282 - https://github.com/google/atheris - https://security.googleblog.com/2020/12/how-atheris-python-fuzzer-works.html - https://github.com/CodeIntelligenceTesting/jazzer/ - https://www.code-intelligence.com/blog/java-fuzzing-with-jazzer - https://go.dev/doc/security/fuzz/ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 9

[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:123881] [Ruby Bug#21703] RUBY_CRASH_REPORT does not work when shelling out in some cases
by peterzhu2118 (Peter Zhu) 24 Mar '26

24 Mar '26

Issue #21703 has been reported by peterzhu2118 (Peter Zhu). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21703: RUBY_CRASH_REPORT does not work when shelling out in some cases https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21703 * Author: peterzhu2118 (Peter Zhu) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.2: DONTNEED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- GitHub PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/15292 RUBY_CRASH_REPORT does not work in some cases when shelling out on Linux. For example, given the following shell script dump.sh: ```sh #!/usr/bin/env bash cat > /tmp/crash ``` And we see it fails like this: ``` $ RUBY_CRASH_REPORT="|dump.sh" ruby -rfiddle -e "Fiddle::Pointer.new(1, 10)[0]" cat: -: Resource temporarily unavailable ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 3

[ruby-core:124388] [Ruby Bug#21814] 0.pow(2,-9999999999999999990) should be zero
by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 24 Mar '26

24 Mar '26

Issue #21814 has been reported by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21814: 0.pow(2,-9999999999999999990) should be zero https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21814 * Author: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) * Status: Open * Target version: 4.0 * ruby -v: 4.1dev * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN, 4.0: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- When I try `0.pow(2,-9999999999999999990)`, irb prints `-9999999999999999990`, but I think no matter what you divide zero by, the modulo should be zero. Matz. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 4

[ruby-core:124381] [Ruby Bug#21811] Backport GH-15763
by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 24 Mar '26

24 Mar '26

Issue #21811 has been reported by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21811: Backport GH-15763 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21811 * Author: nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) * Status: Closed * Backport: 3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED, 4.0: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/15763 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 3

[ruby-core:124187] [Ruby Bug#21779] Do not export functions from statically linked extensions
by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 24 Mar '26

24 Mar '26

Issue #21779 has been reported by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21779: Do not export functions from statically linked extensions https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21779 * Author: nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- Reported at https://github.com/ruby/io-console/pull/105. This is caused by `InitVM_console` exposed from the statically linked io/console is called from the loaded io-console gem. The static `InitVM_console` initializes the ractor local storage key, but it is different from the key used in the gem extension. Also, [the workaround for conflict between `Init` functions](commit:ae8990aef098410ecc2b5f48fea9d7d171a3c5f6) is necessary for `InitVM` functions too. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 2

[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