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

[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) 11 Sep '25

11 Sep '25

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/

7 8

[ruby-core:111526] [Ruby master Bug#19288] Ractor JSON parsing significantly slower than linear parsing
by maciej.mensfeld (Maciej Mensfeld) 08 Sep '25

08 Sep '25

Issue #19288 has been reported by maciej.mensfeld (Maciej Mensfeld). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19288: Ractor JSON parsing significantly slower than linear parsing https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19288 * Author: maciej.mensfeld (Maciej Mensfeld) * 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 simple benchmark: ```ruby require 'json' require 'benchmark' CONCURRENT = 5 RACTORS = true ELEMENTS = 100_000 data = CONCURRENT.times.map do ELEMENTS.times.map do { rand => rand, rand => rand, rand => rand, rand => rand }.to_json end end ractors = CONCURRENT.times.map do Ractor.new do Ractor.receive.each { JSON.parse(_1) } end end result = Benchmark.measure do if RACTORS CONCURRENT.times do |i| ractors[i].send(data[i], move: false) end ractors.each(&:take) else # Linear without any threads data.each do |piece| piece.each { JSON.parse(_1) } end end end puts result ``` Gives following results on my 8 core machine: ```shell # without ractors: 2.731748 0.003993 2.735741 ( 2.736349) # with ractors 12.580452 5.089802 17.670254 ( 5.209755) ``` I would expect Ractors not to be two times slower on the CPU intense work. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

9 23

[ruby-core:117618] [Ruby master Feature#20437] Could be the licensing conditions be made less ambiguous?
by vo.x (Vit Ondruch) 02 Sep '25

02 Sep '25

Issue #20437 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20437: Could be the licensing conditions be made less ambiguous? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20437 * Author: vo.x (Vit Ondruch) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- # Current state The current [COPYING](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/6cfd929034f1fe3d93160365505a8b88… file says the following: ~~~ Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz(a)netlab.jp>. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the 2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL), or the conditions below: 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the ... snip ... ~~~ And this is quite ambiguous. Let me show a few examples: # Ambiguous examples ## lib/net/protocol.rb https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/6cfd929034f1fe3d93160365505a8b88bef56159/… ~~~ # This program is free software. You can re-distribute and/or # modify this program under the same terms as Ruby itself, # Ruby Distribute License or GNU General Public License. ~~~ So what is the license? Is it 2-clause BSDL + Ruby + GPL? Or is is just Ruby + GPL but not 2-clause BSDL? ## Racc https://github.com/ruby/racc/blob/d52fb64d166046bfde81e6e9c424fcd884ebcabf/… ~~~ Racc is distributed under the same terms of ruby. (see the file COPYING). ~~~ where the [COPYING](https://github.com/ruby/racc/blob/d52fb64d166046bfde81e6e9c424fcd8… contains just 2-clause BSDL. Not even mentioning that Ruby used to be GPLv2 licensed: https://github.com/ruby/racc/commit/cc7fe952a6b1fc2ef43477674fa13f2d9d99e818 ## Rubygems https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/master/LICENSE.txt The license is obviously modeled after Ruby COPYING file, but if it could say "licensed under MIT or Ruby", it would be much better. ## Gettext https://github.com/ruby-gettext/gettext/blob/8d84132efd888e68fffbce41331645… The license note is so old that it is not obvious what that means and what was the intention. Did the Ruby relicensing from "GPLv2 or Ruby" to "GPLv2 or BSD" influenced this project? ## SPDX https://spdx.org/licenses/Ruby.html It quotes just the "conditions below" as a Ruby license, while referring to [Ruby license file](https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt) mentioning also 2-clause BSDL # Proposal To me it seems that the whole world recognizes "Ruby" license, except Ruby. Therefore I think it would be nice if Ruby project recognized the "Ruby" license. There are two possibilities I can think of: ## Refer the license by name ~~~diff $ git diff diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING index 48e5a96de7..a2d179a8a9 100644 --- a/COPYING +++ b/COPYING @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz(a)netlab.jp>. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the -2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL), or the conditions below: +2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL), or the conditions of the Ruby license below: 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the software without restriction, provided that you duplicate all of the ~~~ ## Extract the "conditions below" into "Ruby" license file The "conditions below" text could be extracted into separate file (e.g. "RUBY_LICENSE") and the "COPYING" file rephrased to say: ~~~ Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz(a)netlab.jp>. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the 2-clause BSDL (see the file BSDL), or Ruby license (see the file RUBY_LICENSE) ~~~ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 5

[ruby-core:116083] [Ruby master Feature#20163] Introduce #bit_count method on Integer
by garrison (Garrison Jensen) 01 Sep '25

01 Sep '25

Issue #20163 has been reported by garrison (Garrison Jensen). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20163: Introduce #bit_count method on Integer https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20163 * Author: garrison (Garrison Jensen) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- This feature request is to implement a method called #bit_count on Integer that returns the number of ones in the binary representation of the absolute value of the integer. ``` n = 19 n.bit_count #=> 3 (-n).bit_count #=> 3 ``` This is often useful when you use an integer as a bitmask and want to count how many bits are set. This would be equivalent to ``` n.to_s(2).count("1") ``` However, this can be outperformed by ``` def bit_count(n) count = 0 while n > 0 n &= n - 1 # Flip the least significant 1 bit to 0 count += 1 end count end ``` I think this would be a useful addition because it would fit alongside the other bit-related methods defined on integer: `#bit_length,` `#allbits?`, `#anybits?`, `#nobits?`. Also, when working with bitmasks, a minor upgrade to performance often results in a significant improvement. Similar methods from other languages: https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#int.bit_count https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.count_ones -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

10 18

[ruby-core:121234] [Ruby master Bug#21168] Prism doesn't require argument parentheses (in some cases) when a block is present but parse.y does
by Earlopain (Earlopain _) 30 Aug '25

30 Aug '25

Issue #21168 has been reported by Earlopain (Earlopain _). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21168: Prism doesn't require argument parentheses (in some cases) when a block is present but parse.y does https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21168 * Author: Earlopain (Earlopain _) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.4.2 (2025-02-15 revision d2930f8e7a) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- It's a bit more than that but explaining it in full would be a bit much. Instead, see this: ```rb foo( bar baz do end ) ``` ```sh $ ruby -c --parser=prism test.rb Syntax OK $ ruby -c --parser=parse.y test.rb ruby: test.rb:2: syntax error, unexpected 'do' for block, expecting ')' (SyntaxError) bar baz do ^~ ``` OTOH, this is consistently rejected: ```rb [ foo bar do end, ] # And also foo || bar baz do end ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 3

[ruby-core:122121] [Ruby Bug#21342] Segfault: invalid keeping_mutexes when using Mutex in Thread then Fiber after GC
by maciej.mensfeld (Maciej Mensfeld) 30 Aug '25

30 Aug '25

Issue #21342 has been reported by maciej.mensfeld (Maciej Mensfeld). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21342: Segfault: invalid keeping_mutexes when using Mutex in Thread then Fiber after GC https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21342 * Author: maciej.mensfeld (Maciej Mensfeld) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 3.4.3 (2025-04-14 revision d0b7e5b6a0) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Ruby crashes with a `[BUG] invalid keeping_mutexes error` when attempting to GC locked mutex that was used in a Thread within a Fiber context after garbage collection. The error indicates an attempt to unlock a mutex that is not locked, suggesting a state management issue with mutexes across Thread and Fiber boundaries. ## Ruby Version `ruby 3.4.3 (2025-04-14 revision d0b7e5b6a0) +PRISM [x86_64-linux]` ## Reproduce Process ``` ruby # segv.rb 5.times do m = Mutex.new Thread.new do m.synchronize do end end.join Fiber.new do GC.start m.lock end.resume end ``` 1. Save the above code to a file (e.g., `segv.rb`) 2. Run with `ruby segv.rb` 3. The crash occurs intermittently - sometimes it crashes immediately, sometimes it hangs, once in a while it works ## Actual Result The program crashes with the following error: ``` segv.rb: [BUG] invalid keeping_mutexes: Attempt to unlock a mutex which is not locked ruby 3.4.3 (2025-04-14 revision d0b7e5b6a0) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] ``` whole segfault in the attached txt file. Full crash backtrace shows the error originates from: - `rb_threadptr_unlock_all_locking_mutexes` in thread.c:450 - `rb_thread_terminate_all` in thread.c:467 The crash suggests an issue in mutex state management during thread termination. ## Expected Result The script should complete successfully without crashing. The mutex should be properly managed across Thread and Fiber contexts, and garbage collection should not interfere with mutex state. ---Files-------------------------------- crash.txt (23.4 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 5

[ruby-core:122797] [Ruby Feature#21515] Add `&return` as sugar for `x=my_calculation; return x if x`
by nhorton (Noah Horton) 28 Aug '25

28 Aug '25

Issue #21515 has been reported by nhorton (Noah Horton). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21515: Add `&return` as sugar for `x=my_calculation; return x if x` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21515 * Author: nhorton (Noah Horton) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- Let me preface this by saying I have no marriage to the exact keyword name of `&return`. # Problem It is very common to have an early return in code where you get some initial value and return it if it is non-null. i.e. ``` return my_calculation(input_a, input_b) if my_calculation(input_a, input_b) ``` That form on its own is verbose and one where you need to look at it for a moment to confirm it is the same code on either side of the if. If `my_calculation` is non-trivial at all, it normally gets turned into something with a variable: ``` my_calc = my_calculation(input_a, input_b) return my_calc if my_calc ``` That is now two lines. The worse scenario, however, is if the user did not bother doing that and my_calculation turned out to be expensive (and they did not know it). # Proposal I propose a syntax of `&return my_calculation(input_a, input_b)` where it will evaluate the argument and return it as the result of the method if it is non-nil, otherwise it will continue on. # Alternatives ## Do Nothing There is no way to work around this with rolling your own methods. You can't make a `returnif` method or something yourself since you can't do a return in the caller's scope. ## Different Name The best other name I saw were permutations of `returnif`. The biggest issue I see is the similarity of the following two statements: ``` return if foo returnif foo ``` Those are obviously very, very different statements, but are somewhat similar. However, things like this are common, and the code is still quite distinct on those, so I think it is acceptable. Ultimately, this feels so similar to the safe navigator that using `&` in this context feels appropriate. Thank you all for your consideration. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

9 12

[ruby-core:122665] [Ruby Bug#21503] \p{Word} does not match on \p{Join_Control} while docs say it does
by procmarco (Marco Concetto Rudilosso) 27 Aug '25

27 Aug '25

Issue #21503 has been reported by procmarco (Marco Concetto Rudilosso). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21503: \p{Word} does not match on \p{Join_Control} while docs say it does https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21503 * Author: procmarco (Marco Concetto Rudilosso) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 3.4.4 * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- in the [docs](https://ruby-doc.org/3.4.1/Regexp.html#:~:text=/%5Cp%7B-,Word,-%7D/%3… it is mentioned that `\p{Word}` matches the equivalent of: `[\p{M}\p{Nd}\p{Pc}\p{Alpha}\p{Join_Control}]` as it's also defined in the [unicode spec](https://unicode.org/reports/tr18/#word) the issue is that it does not seem to be the case ``` irb(main):018> REGEX = /\p{Word}/u => /\p{Word}/ irb(main):019> "\u200D".gsub(REGEX, "-") => "‍" irb(main):020> REGEX2 = /\p{Join_Control}/u => /\p{Join_Control}/ irb(main):021> "\u200D".gsub(REGEX2, "-") => "-" ``` There's 2 solutions here, either we change the docs or the code. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 7

[ruby-core:122501] [Ruby Bug#21402] ruby2_keywords affects methods/procs with post arguments
by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) 27 Aug '25

27 Aug '25

Issue #21402 has been reported by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21402: ruby2_keywords affects methods/procs with post arguments https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21402 * Author: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- I believe this is an oversight. We forgot to consider post arguments during the development of `ruby2_keywords`. I believe we should not allow `ruby2_keywords` on methods/procs with post arguments. Example: ```ruby def a(*c, **kw) [c, kw] end def b(*a, b) a(*a, b) end ruby2_keywords(:b) b({foo: 1}, bar: 1) # Currently: [[{foo: 1}], {bar: 1}] # Expected: [[{foo: 1}, {bar: 1}], {}] ``` I think the current behavior is unexpected and undesired, because instead of flagging the last element in the splat array, it flags a post argument. I've submitted a pull request to fix this: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/13475 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 2

[ruby-core:120694] [Ruby master Bug#21039] Ractor.make_shareable breaks block semantics (seeing updated captured variables) of existing blocks
by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 27 Aug '25

27 Aug '25

Issue #21039 has been reported by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21039: Ractor.make_shareable breaks block semantics (seeing updated captured variables) of existing blocks https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21039 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open * Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ```ruby def make_counter count = 0 nil.instance_exec do [-> { count }, -> { count += 1 }] end end get, increment = make_counter reader = Thread.new { sleep 0.01 loop do p get.call sleep 0.1 end } writer = Thread.new { loop do increment.call sleep 0.1 end } ractor_thread = Thread.new { sleep 1 Ractor.make_shareable(get) } sleep 2 ``` This prints: ``` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ``` But it should print 1..20, and indeed it does when commenting out the `Ractor.make_shareable(get)`. This shows a given block/Proc instance is concurrently broken by `Ractor.make_shareable`, IOW Ractor is breaking fundamental Ruby semantics of blocks and their captured/outer variables or "environment". It's expected that `Ractor.make_shareable` can `freeze` objects and that may cause some FrozenError, but here it's not a FrozenError, it's wrong values being read. I think what should happen instead is that `Ractor.make_shareable` should create a new Proc and mutate that. However, if the Proc is inside some other object and not just directly the argument, that wouldn't work (like `Ractor.make_shareable([get])`). So I think one fix would to be to only accept Procs for `Ractor.make_shareable(obj, copy: true)`. FWIW that currently doesn't allow Procs, it gives `<internal:ractor>:828:in 'Ractor.make_shareable': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError)`. I think the only other way, and I think it would be a far better way would be to not support making Procs shareable with `Ractor.make_shareable`. Instead it could be some new method like `isolated { ... }` or `Proc.isolated { ... }` or `Proc.snapshot_outer_variables { ... }` or so, only accepting a literal block (to avoid mutating/breaking an existing block), and that would snapshot outer variables (or require no outer variables like Ractor.new's block, or maybe even do `Ractor.make_shareable(copy: true)` on outer variables) and possibly also set `self` since that's anyway needed. That would make such blocks with different semantics explicit, which would fix the problem of breaking the intention of who wrote that block and whoever read that code, expecting normal Ruby block semantics, which includes seeing updated outer variables. Related: #21033 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243#note-5 Extracted from https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21033#note-14 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

7 25