July 2026 - ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:126070] [Ruby Bug#22193] Segmentation fault in functions to MemoryView contiguity with NULL shape and/or strides
by KitaitiMakoto 13 Jul '26

13 Jul '26

Issue #22193 has been reported by KitaitiMakoto (真北市). ---------------------------------------- Bug #22193: Segmentation fault in functions to MemoryView contiguity with NULL shape and/or strides https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/22193 * Author: KitaitiMakoto (真北市) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 4.1.0dev (2026-07-13T13:26:16Z origin/master cb2ea293c6) +PRISM [arm64-darwin25] * Backport: 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN, 4.0: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Hello, I encountered a segmentation fault when calling `rb_memory_view_is_row_major_contiguous` with a MemoryView whose shape and strides are `NULL`. For instance, a MemoryView initialized with `rb_memory_view_init_as_byte_array` function causes this problem. The cause is that the function handles `shape` and `strides` as arrays without checking whether they are `NULL` or not. Environment ----------- * Ruby commit: cb2ea293c6 * OS: macOS (M2 Mac) Code to reproduce the problem: ------------------------------ I will send a pull request later for the full patch. ### ext/-test-/memory_view/memory_view.c ### ```c static VALUE memory_view_is_row_major_contiguous(VALUE mod, VALUE obj) { rb_memory_view_t view; VALUE result; if (!rb_memory_view_get(obj, &view, 0)) { rb_raise(rb_eArgError, "Unable to get MemoryView"); } result = rb_memory_view_is_row_major_contiguous(&view) ? Qtrue : Qfalse; rb_memory_view_release(&view); return result; } static VALUE memory_view_is_column_major_contiguous(VALUE mod, VALUE obj) { rb_memory_view_t view; VALUE result; if (!rb_memory_view_get(obj, &view, 0)) { rb_raise(rb_eArgError, "Unable to get MemoryView"); } result = rb_memory_view_is_column_major_contiguous(&view) ? Qtrue : Qfalse; rb_memory_view_release(&view); return result; } // ... void Init_memory_view(void) { // ... rb_define_module_function(mMemoryViewTestUtils, "is_row_major_contiguous", memory_view_is_row_major_contiguous, 1); rb_define_module_function(mMemoryViewTestUtils, "is_column_major_contiguous", memory_view_is_column_major_contiguous, 1); // ... } ``` ### test/ruby/test_memory_view.rb ### ```ruby class TestMemoryView < Test::Unit::TestCase # ... def test_rb_memory_view_is_row_major_contiguous es = MemoryViewTestUtils::ExportableString.new("ruby") assert_true(MemoryViewTestUtils.is_row_major_contiguous(es)) end def test_rb_memory_view_is_column_major_contiguous es = MemoryViewTestUtils::ExportableString.new("ruby") assert_true(MemoryViewTestUtils.is_column_major_contiguous(es)) end # ... end ``` Steps to reproduce the problem: ------------------------------- 1. Add code above to the current Ruby (cb2ea293c6) 2. Run `make test-all TESTS=test/ruby/test_memory_view.rb` 3. Then you can see segmentation fault Thank you. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 1

[ruby-core:126068] [Ruby Misc#22180] Provide official Windows (mswin) binary packages and a version manager
by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 13 Jul '26

13 Jul '26

Issue #22180 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). Thanks all. I adopted naruse's suggestion: `vcruntime140.dll` was removed from the `binary-package` target in https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/17662 before the merge, so the runtime installed by the VC++ Redistributable stays serviced by Windows Update. `rb setup` in `rbmanager` now checks for the Redistributable and installs it when missing. For users who extract the zip without rbmanager, it will be documented as a prerequisite in ruby/ruby or download page of www. ---------------------------------------- Misc #22180: Provide official Windows (mswin) binary packages and a version manager https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/22180#change-118068 * Author: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) ---------------------------------------- Japanese version of this proposal: https://gist.github.com/hsbt/552b01f2aac616af6f8056148407900a ## Background Ruby used to ship official Windows binaries. https://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/binaries/mswin32/ still has mswin32 zips from the 1.6 to 1.9-preview era, and they were discontinued around 1.9. One reason is that a bare zip was not usable as a distribution. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/999 reports that the `ruby-1.9.1-preview1` mswin32 zip was missing the OpenSSL and zlib DLLs, so `gem update` did not work at all. Since then, installing Ruby on Windows has depended on third-party distributions. The mswin platform, which is what `ruby/ruby` CI actually builds and tests with MSVC, has had no end-user distribution at all. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19325 shows how the current state is perceived by Windows users. The technical ground has changed. Over the last few months I fixed all the tests that remained broken on mswin myself: `nmake check`, `test-bundler` and `test-bundled-gems` are green now, and `nmake exam`, which runs all of the test suites, completes as well. The build manages its C dependencies with a pinned vcpkg manifest (`vcpkg.json`), and CI covers VS 2022, VS 2026 and `windows-11-arm`. MSVC ABI (`vcruntime140`) has been stable since 2015. The missing piece is distribution, not build quality. Timing also matters. In the era of writing code with AI, the people who need a working Ruby on Windows are increasingly ordinary users who let a coding assistant set up the environment for them, and consumer AI tools operate natively on Windows, not through WSL. An assistant working unattended needs a runtime that installs without elevation and without GUI dialogs, exposes a machine-readable version index, and is relocatable so that installs are deterministic. Unattended provisioning is already the norm in CI (`setup-ruby` exists precisely for this), and AI assistants bring the same requirement to end-user machines. Python reached the same conclusion with PEP 773, described below. Ruby has no official answer to this on Windows today. ## Proposal I propose to provide an official Windows distribution based on the mswin platform, made of three components. All of them, including the test-suite fixes above, are work I implemented and verified myself. Nothing below is a design on paper. **1. `ruby/ruby`: a `binary-package` target.** A new nmake-only target packages the installed tree together with the vcpkg runtime DLLs, the VC runtime and the license terms of everything redistributed into a relocatable zip, with build-machine specific paths scrubbed from `rbconfig.rb`. Thanks to `LOAD_RELATIVE` the tree runs from any location. I will submit the pull request shortly. This is implemented and verified. The package passes a smoke test with `PATH` restricted to `System32` (openssl, fiddle, psych, zlib and RubyGems all work), and C extensions compile with VS Build Tools. In a survey of the 500 most-downloaded gems on rubygems.org forced to build from source, 21 of the 44 gems with a native extension built and loaded. All 23 failures were gem-side or environment-side issues (gcc-only code, POSIX-only source, missing third-party libraries), none caused by the package or by ruby itself, with identical results on 3.3.11, 3.4.10 and 4.0.5. **2. `ruby/actions`: building and publishing.** Automation builds the zips and publishes them together with sha256 checksums: daily builds of master and release builds of the maintained series. Released series (3.3, 3.4, 4.0) are built from their release tarballs with the same packaging script applied externally, so no change to the stable branches is required. This also enables re-packaging revisions (`-1`, `-2`) when a bundled dependency such as OpenSSL needs a security update without a new Ruby release. This part is already working too: in addition to master, zips of 3.3.11, 3.4.10 and 4.0.5 have been built and verified this way, and they are the packages the gem survey above was run on. **3. `rbmanager`: a version manager for Windows.** The same shape as Python's install manager (PEP 773, https://peps.python.org/pep-0773/) A single native executable (the `rb` command) installs a zip from a URL or a local path, extracts it under `%LOCALAPPDATA%`, switches versions with an NTFS junction, and needs one user-level `PATH` entry and no elevation. A working prototype written in C# is already complete and verified on a real machine: ``` > rb install ruby-4.1.0-x64-mswin64_140.zip Extracting ruby-4.1.0-x64-mswin64_140 ... Installed ruby-4.1.0-x64-mswin64_140 > ruby -v ruby 4.1.0dev (2026-06-29T22:22:44Z master 2ce6b8e54a) +PRISM [x64-mswin64_140] > rb list ruby-3.3.11-x64-mswin64_140 ruby-3.4.10-x64-mswin64_140 ruby-4.0.5-x64-mswin64_140 * ruby-4.1.0-x64-mswin64_140 > rb use 4.0 Now using ruby-4.0.5-x64-mswin64_140 > ruby -v ruby 4.0.5 (2026-05-20 revision 64336ffd0e) +PRISM [x64-mswin64_140] ``` The example installs from a local zip today. Once the official version index described below is published, `rb install 4.1` will resolve the version, download the zip and verify its checksum by itself. ## What building on the platform vendor's toolchain enables This proposal is complementary to the existing gcc-based distributions and does not compete with them. Some capabilities are decided by third-party vendors rather than by Ruby, because their SDKs assume the MSVC toolchain and ABI, and those become reachable with an official MSVC-built runtime. Machine-learning runtime assets become directly reusable: the prebuilt Windows packages of ONNX Runtime, libtorch and OpenCV are MSVC binaries with C++ ABIs, and CUDA's `nvcc` accepts only `cl.exe` as its host compiler on Windows, so Ruby extensions binding GPU and ML runtimes need an MSVC-built Ruby to link cleanly. PDB symbols connect Ruby to the standard Windows diagnostics stack: WinDbg and Visual Studio can debug a mixed stack of Ruby and vendor DLLs, WER minidumps from end users become analyzable, and publishing official symbol packages becomes possible for the first time. And extension authors can pull C dependencies from the same vcpkg ecosystem that `ruby/ruby` itself already uses through `vcpkg.json`. ## What I ask to decide First, make these official distribution artifacts: announce them on the www.ruby-lang.org download page and host the zips, checksums and a static version index (the equivalent of pymanager's `index-windows.json`) on ruby-lang.org infrastructure. GitHub Releases can serve as the initial hosting during the preview period. Second, sign the published binaries with a project identity (for example SignPath Foundation issues OSS code-signing certificates) rather than an individual certificate. Third, host `rbmanager` as a repository under the `ruby` organization. The concrete zip layout and naming rule are implementation details. I will work them out with @nobu and document the result in `doc/distribution/windows.md`, so they are not something to decide on this ticket. ## Scope and non-goals This proposal does not replace or deprecate any existing third-party distribution. It adds an official channel for the platform the core team itself builds and tests. I already operate the official snap distribution and the entire release pipeline including security releases, and these artifacts ride on the same automation and the same operator, so this proposal does not change the current maintenance level. Pure-Ruby gems work with no toolchain. Building a C extension requires VS Build Tools, which Microsoft has licensed for building open-source dependencies without a paid Visual Studio license since 2022, and a `ridk`-like bootstrap (`win32/install-buildtools.cmd` is the seed) is follow-up work. Precompiled `x64-mswin64` gems across the ecosystem are long-term work and not a prerequisite. The survey above identified 12 gems that already support Windows with `x64-mingw-ucrt` precompiled binaries and only lack a working MSVC source path, a concrete and small upstream fix list. That list includes nokogiri and ffi, so applications depending on them (Rails, for example) do not work on this distribution yet. The fixes are tractable: I have already verified a one-line fix for msgpack locally and will send these upstream. TLS trust anchors are not bundled in the zip. `rbmanager` provisions certificates from the Windows certificate store at install time, and I will separately propose `OpenSSL::X509::Store#add_store` support for the OpenSSL 3.2+ `org.openssl.winstore://` store in ruby/openssl as the permanent solution. x64 comes first. arm64 (`arm64-mswin64`) already builds in CI and will follow once its test suite is green. ## Roadmap The rollout is incremental rather than tied to a single date. Zips for the released series (3.3, 3.4, 4.0) will be published progressively for their existing releases. For 4.1, nightly zips of master are published continuously, and a zip follows each preview release as soon as it is out. Only the GA of `rbmanager` and the distribution mechanism as a whole is aligned with the Ruby 4.1 release in December. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:125775] [Ruby Feature#22118] Introduce Basic Bit Operations into String
by hasumikin (hitoshi hasumi) 13 Jul '26

13 Jul '26

Issue #22118 has been reported by hasumikin (hitoshi hasumi). ---------------------------------------- Feature #22118: Introduce Basic Bit Operations into String https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/22118 * Author: hasumikin (hitoshi hasumi) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- This PR implements a subset of the specification proposed in the parent feature ticket #22082 PR URL: [placeholder to be updated] ## Methods implemented with the same specification as the parent ticket * `String#bit_at(offset, lsb_first: true) -> true | false | nil` * `String#bitwise_not -> String` * `String#bitwise_not! -> self` * `String#bitwise_and(other) -> String` * `String#bitwise_and!(other) -> self` * `String#bitwise_or(other) -> String` * `String#bitwise_or!(other) -> self` * `String#bitwise_xor(other) -> String` * `String#bitwise_xor!(other) -> self` ## Methods with range-oriented forms omitted for now The parent ticket also included range-oriented forms for some methods. In this PR, those range arguments are intentionally omitted, and the methods are limited to simpler forms. Range support can be considered as a future extension. * `String#bit_count -> Integer` * `String#bit_set(offset, lsb_first: true) -> self` * `String#bit_clear(offset, lsb_first: true) -> self` * `String#bit_flip(offset, lsb_first: true) -> self` In particular, `String#bit_count` currently takes no arguments. It does not accept a range, offset/length pair, or `lsb_first:` keyword. --- ## Remaining design questions even after narrowing the scope The overall direction of adding these methods has already been approved by Matz. The remaining questions are mostly about naming and API details. ### 1. Why the `bitwise_*` prefix is used In the parent ticket, all other methods are related to bit positions: they either take bit-position arguments, yield bit positions, or operate on a specified bit range. In contrast, the `bitwise_*` methods are whole-data operations. They apply to the entire string as a fixed-size bitmap and do not expose bit positions or bit ordering. The `bitwise_*` prefix is intended to make this distinction explicit. ### 2. Bit numbering #### `lsb_first: true` (default) Within each byte, `offset = 0` is the LSB. Numbering proceeds upward through byte[0] and then continues at the LSB of byte[1]: ```text byte[0] byte[1] offset: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 bit: b7 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0 b7 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0 ^ ^ LSB LSB offset = byte_index * 8 + bit_in_byte ``` #### `lsb_first: false` for MSB-first Byte order is preserved (`byte[0]` is still first), but within each byte numbering starts at the MSB: ```text byte[0] byte[1] offset: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 bit: b7 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0 b7 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0 ^ ^ MSB MSB offset = byte_index * 8 + (7 - bit_in_byte) ``` * Whether `lsb_first:` is needed at all, or whether an equivalent mechanism should exist under another name? * If such a mechanism is needed, whether `lsb_first:` is the right keyword name? * If `lsb_first:` is acceptable, should its default be `true`? My point is that `lsb_first:` is needed because both bit numbering conventions are used in real byte-buffer formats. LSB-first is the more common convention for general in-memory bitmap use, including formats and APIs such as Apache Arrow validity bitmaps, ext4 block bitmaps, Roaring bitmaps, Linux/BSD bitmap APIs, and hardware register descriptions. MSB-first is also needed for domains such as RFC-style network protocol diagrams, PNG low-bit-depth scanlines, BitTorrent bitfields, and some compressed bit streams. The keyword only controls bit numbering within each byte. Byte order itself is unchanged. ### 3. Out-of-range behavior `String#bit_at` returns `nil` when the bit offset is out of range. On the other hand, mutating methods such as `String#bit_set`, `String#bit_clear`, and `String#bit_flip` raise `IndexError` for an out-of-range bit offset. This follows the same general distinction as read-like access versus write-like access: reading a missing position can return `nil`, but mutating a missing position should not silently do nothing. ### 4. Negative bit offsets Negative bit offsets are rejected with `IndexError`. Although Ruby often uses negative indices to count from the end, combining negative bit offsets with the `lsb_first: true/false` mechanism would make the numbering rule harder to explain and reason about. The API keeps bit offsets as non-negative flat positions from the beginning of the string. ### 5. Length mismatch for binary bitwise operations `String#bitwise_and`, `String#bitwise_or`, and `String#bitwise_xor` require both operands to have the same byte size. If the byte sizes differ, they raise `ArgumentError`. This avoids implicit truncation or zero-padding. Since these methods operate on strings as fixed-size bitmaps, requiring equal sizes makes the operation explicit and predictable. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 8

[ruby-core:126064] [Ruby Bug#15980] Coverage shows while/until after raise if/unless as uncovered line
by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 13 Jul '26

13 Jul '26

Issue #15980 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). I asked GPT 5.5 to fix the issue: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/17825 ---------------------------------------- Bug #15980: Coverage shows while/until after raise if/unless as uncovered line https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15980#change-118065 * Author: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Status: Closed * Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh) * ruby -v: ruby 2.7.0dev (2019-07-03) [x86_64-openbsd6.5] * Backport: 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: DONE ---------------------------------------- The following code shows line 2 (`while true`) as uncovered: ```ruby raise if 1 == 2 while true break end ``` Coverage reports the following for this file: `[1, 0, 1, nil]`. Note that `true` isn't important, any `while` condition will work. However, if you change line 1 to `raise if false`, line 1 shows `nil` coverage, and line 2 shows as covered (`[nil, 1, 1, nil]`). That leads me to believe this issue is related to the optimizer. I bisected this to commit:100bf2757468439106775a7d95a791a8c10b874a, which certainly appears related. This is not a theoretical case, it affected three lines in Sequel. While not a major problem, I do think a fix should be backported to 2.6. Note that this only affects line coverage. Branch coverage shows: ```ruby {"file.rb"=> {:branches=> {[:if, 0, 1, 0, 1, 15]=> {[:then, 1, 1, 0, 1, 5]=>0, [:else, 2, 1, 0, 1, 15]=>1}, [:while, 3, 2, 0, 4, 3]=>{[:body, 4, 3, 2, 3, 7]=>1}}}} ``` If you run with both branch and line coverage, line coverage shows correctly. This affects `while`/`until` after a line with `raise ... if ...` or `raise ... unless ...`. If you switch to `if ...; raise ...; end`, then line coverage shows correctly. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:126059] [Ruby Bug#15980] Coverage shows while/until after raise if/unless as uncovered line
by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 12 Jul '26

12 Jul '26

Issue #15980 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). Is there any chance we can revisit this issue and propose a better fix than the current "coverage is enabled so avoid doing the optimisation" hack? ---------------------------------------- Bug #15980: Coverage shows while/until after raise if/unless as uncovered line https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15980#change-118058 * Author: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Status: Closed * Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh) * ruby -v: ruby 2.7.0dev (2019-07-03) [x86_64-openbsd6.5] * Backport: 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: DONE ---------------------------------------- The following code shows line 2 (`while true`) as uncovered: ```ruby raise if 1 == 2 while true break end ``` Coverage reports the following for this file: `[1, 0, 1, nil]`. Note that `true` isn't important, any `while` condition will work. However, if you change line 1 to `raise if false`, line 1 shows `nil` coverage, and line 2 shows as covered (`[nil, 1, 1, nil]`). That leads me to believe this issue is related to the optimizer. I bisected this to commit:100bf2757468439106775a7d95a791a8c10b874a, which certainly appears related. This is not a theoretical case, it affected three lines in Sequel. While not a major problem, I do think a fix should be backported to 2.6. Note that this only affects line coverage. Branch coverage shows: ```ruby {"file.rb"=> {:branches=> {[:if, 0, 1, 0, 1, 15]=> {[:then, 1, 1, 0, 1, 5]=>0, [:else, 2, 1, 0, 1, 15]=>1}, [:while, 3, 2, 0, 4, 3]=>{[:body, 4, 3, 2, 3, 7]=>1}}}} ``` If you run with both branch and line coverage, line coverage shows correctly. This affects `while`/`until` after a line with `raise ... if ...` or `raise ... unless ...`. If you switch to `if ...; raise ...; end`, then line coverage shows correctly. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:126058] [Ruby Feature#12086] using: option for instance_eval etc.
by shugo (Shugo Maeda) 12 Jul '26

12 Jul '26

Issue #12086 has been updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda). Status changed from Open to Rejected I'm closing this issue because [Feature #22097] has been accepted. ---------------------------------------- Feature #12086: using: option for instance_eval etc. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12086#change-118057 * Author: shugo (Shugo Maeda) * Status: Rejected ---------------------------------------- Currently refinements can be activated only in toplevel or class/module definitions. If they can be activated in block-level, it's useful to implement internal DSLs. How about to add a new option using: for Kernel#instance_eval and Moule#{class,module}_eval? ```ruby module FixnumDivExt refine Fixnum do def /(other) quo(other) end end end p 1 / 2 #=> 0 instance_eval(using: FixnumDivExt) do p 1 / 2 #=> (1/2) end p 1 / 2 #=> 0 ``` Proof-of-concept implementation is available at <https://github.com/shugo/ruby/tree/eval_using>. In my previous proposal before Ruby 2.0, refinements used in a class or module are implicitly activated by instance_eval and class_eval, but now I think it's better to explicitly specify refinements to be activated. Considerations: * In the PoC implementation, refined methods are not cached inline, and thus it decreases the performance of refined method call. If there is a way to guarantee that blocks never be evaluated in different environments, refined methods can be cached inline. * {instance,class,module}_exec cannot be extended in the same way, because they take arbitrary arguments and there's no way to distinguish an option hash from the last argument hash. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:126057] [Ruby Feature#16461] Proc#using
by shugo (Shugo Maeda) 12 Jul '26

12 Jul '26

Issue #16461 has been updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda). Status changed from Assigned to Rejected I'm closing this issue because [Feature #22097] has been accepted. ---------------------------------------- Feature #16461: Proc#using https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16461#change-118056 * Author: shugo (Shugo Maeda) * Status: Rejected * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) ---------------------------------------- ## Overview I propose Proc#using to support block-level refinements. ```ruby module IntegerDivExt refine Integer do def /(other) quo(other) end end end def instance_eval_with_integer_div_ext(obj, &block) block.using(IntegerDivExt) # using IntegerDivExt in the block represented by the Proc object obj.instance_eval(&block) end # necessary where blocks are defined (not where Proc#using is called) using Proc::Refinements p 1 / 2 #=> 0 instance_eval_with_integer_div_ext(1) do p self / 2 #=> (1/2) end p 1 / 2 #=> 0 ``` ## PoC implementation For CRuby: https://github.com/shugo/ruby/pull/2 For JRuby: https://github.com/shugo/jruby/pull/1 ## Background I proposed [Feature #12086: using: option for instance_eval etc.](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12086) before, but it has problems: * Thread safety: The same block can be invoked with different refinements in multiple threads, so it's hard to implement method caching. * _exec family support: {instance,class,module}_exec cannot be supported. * Implicit use of refinements: every blocks can be used with refinements, so there was implementation difficulty in JRuby and it has usability issue in headius's opinion. ## Solutions in this proposal ### Thread safety Proc#using affects the block represented by the Proc object, neither the specific Proc object nor the specific block invocation. Method calls in a block are resolved with refinements which are used by Proc#using in the block at the time. Once all possible refinements are used in the block, there is no need to invalidate method cache anymore. See [these tests](https://github.com/shugo/ruby/pull/2/commits/1c922614ad7d1fb43b73e19… to understand how it works. Which refinements are used is depending on the order of Proc#using invocations until all Proc#using calls are finished, but eventually method calls in a block are resolved with the same refinements. ### * _exec family support [Feature #12086](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12086) was an extension of _eval family, so it cannot be used with _exec family, but Proc#using is independent from _eval family, and can be used with _exec family: ```ruby def instance_exec_with_integer_div_ext(obj, *args, &block) block.using(IntegerDivExt) obj.instance_exec(*args, &block) end using Proc::Refinements p 1 / 2 #=> 0 instance_exec_with_integer_div_ext(1, 2) do |other| p self / other #=> (1/2) end p 1 / 2 #=> 0 ``` ### Implicit use of refinements Proc#using can be used only if `using Proc::Refinements` is called in the scope of the block represented by the Proc object. Otherwise, a RuntimeError is raised. There are two reasons: * JRuby creates a special CallSite for refinements at compile-time only when `using` is called at the scope. * When reading programs, it may help understanding behavior. IMHO, it may be unnecessary if libraries which uses Proc#using are well documented. `Proc::Refinements` is a dummy module, and has no actual refinements. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:125428] [Ruby Bug#22058] {Method,InstanceMethod}#super_method doesn't work correctly for refined method with refinements for method active in the caller's scope
by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) 12 Jul '26

12 Jul '26

Issue #22058 has been reported by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans). ---------------------------------------- Bug #22058: {Method,InstanceMethod}#super_method doesn't work correctly for refined method with refinements for method active in the caller's scope https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/22058 * Author: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 4.1.0dev (2026-05-03T23:57:21Z master d8d2ed5dc9) +PRISM [x86_64-openbsd7.8] * Backport: 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN, 4.0: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- I've found that Method#super_method and InstanceMethod#super_method do not work correctly in some cases for refined methods. At the least, there is a definite bug, which is that #super_method inside a scope with a refinement activated for the method results in a loop over the refined methods. I'm not sure if the semantics for #super_method for refined methods were ever discussed. Other than the bug regarding the loop over the refinement, the currently semantics seem to be: * While handling additional refined methods for the same class as the current method, #super_method will consider the refinements active at the point the method was created * For ancestors, #super_method will consider the refinements active in the scope calling #super_method These semantics seem questionable. My guess is they are not the result of intentional design, but due purely to implementation details. I see two possibilities: 1. Keep the current behavior, where results depend on refinements activated in the caller's namespace. In this case, I recommend that we not have different handling when there are other refinements for the same class as the current method should. If refinements are not in scope, #super_method should not return them. We should also consider whether #super_method should error if the receiver is a refinement method for a refinement not activated in the caller's scope. 2. Change #super_method so that it depends on the refinements activated in the namespace it was created in, for ancestors as well as for the current class. This would make #super_method return the same result no matter where it was called. I think option 2 makes more sense, but it requires that Method/InstanceMethod objects for refined methods keep a reference to the scope in which they were created. A related minor bug I found during this research is the #inspect output for #super_method results for refined methods also does not use the same format, indicating there is something internally different. Here's example code showing these issues, with commented output below: ```ruby class B def b = 16 end class A < B def b = 8 + super end module M1 refine(A){def b = 1 + super} end module M2 refine(A){def b = 2 + super} end module M3 refine(A){def b = 4 + super} end module M4 refine(B){def b = 4 + super} end I = A.new.method(:b) C = A.instance_method(:b) module N0 using M1 using M3 I = A.new.method(:b) C = A.instance_method(:b) end module N using M1 using M2 using M3 using M4 I = A.new.method(:b) C = A.instance_method(:b) puts "", "Inside module using all refinements using method created using all refinements:" p I i = I 6.times do i = i.super_method p i end puts p C c = C 6.times do c = c.super_method p c end puts "", "Inside module using all refinements using method created using some refinements:" p N0::I i = N0::I 6.times do i = i.super_method p i end puts p N0::C c = N0::C 6.times do c = c.super_method p c end puts "", "Inside module using all refinements using method created using no refinements:" p ::I i = ::I 6.times do break unless i = i.super_method p i end puts p ::C c = ::C 6.times do break unless c = c.super_method p c end end module N0 using M1 using M3 puts "", "Inside module using some refinements using method created using all refinements:" p N::I i = N::I 6.times do break unless i = i.super_method p i end puts p N::C c = N::C 6.times do break unless c = c.super_method p c end end puts "", "Top level using method created with all refinements:" p N::I i = N::I 6.times do break unless i = i.super_method p i end puts p N::C c = N::C 6.times do break unless c = c.super_method p c end puts "", "Top level using method created with some refinements:" p N0::I i = N0::I 6.times do break unless i = i.super_method p i end puts p N0::C c = N0::C 6.times do break unless c = c.super_method p c end puts "", "Top level using method created with no refinements:" p I i = I 6.times do break unless i = i.super_method p i end puts p C c = C 6.times do break unless c = c.super_method p c end ``` First, the bug. This shows a loop among active refinements. After going through M3, M2, and M1, it loops back to M3. This also shows weird #inspect output, with #super_method not showing the main class. ``` Inside module using all refinements using method created using all refinements: #<Method: A(#<refinement:A@M3>)#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> ``` This shows the dynamic scoping of the #super_method. At time of call, only M3 and M1 are in scope. You see in the first loop, only M3 and M1 are used, but subsequent loops use M3, M2, and M1. ``` Inside module using all refinements using method created using some refinements: #<Method: A(#<refinement:A@M3>)#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> ``` This shows a case where the Method was created with no refinements activated. Refinements for superclasses that are active in the current scope are still picked up: ``` Inside module using all refinements using method created using no refinements: #<Method: A#b() t/t43.rb:30> #<Method: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<Method: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<Method: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<Method: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<Method: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<Method: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<UnboundMethod: A#b() t/t43.rb:30> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:B@M4>#b() t/t43.rb:46> ``` More evidence for dynamic scoping. This is the opposite of the second example, where the first loop has M3, M2, and M1, and subsequent loops have M3 and M1. ``` Inside module using some refinements using method created using all refinements: #<Method: A(#<refinement:A@M3>)#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> ``` This shows the behavior when no refinements are activated in the current scope. It still includes refinements for the same class as the current method, but no refinements for superclasses. Also, note that there is no longer a loop, because there are no refinements activated: ``` Top level using method created with all refinements: #<Method: A(#<refinement:A@M3>)#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<Method: A#b() t/t43.rb:30> #<Method: B#b() t/t43.rb:26> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M2>#b() t/t43.rb:38> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<UnboundMethod: A#b() t/t43.rb:30> #<UnboundMethod: B#b() t/t43.rb:26> ``` This shows that only the refinements were activated at the point the method was created are included. ``` Top level using method created with some refinements: #<Method: A(#<refinement:A@M3>)#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<Method: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<Method: A#b() t/t43.rb:30> #<Method: B#b() t/t43.rb:26> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M3>#b() t/t43.rb:42> #<UnboundMethod: #<refinement:A@M1>#b() t/t43.rb:34> #<UnboundMethod: A#b() t/t43.rb:30> #<UnboundMethod: B#b() t/t43.rb:26> ``` This output doesn't show any problems, it shows that if refinements were not activated when the method was created, and are not activated when #super_method is called, that #super_method ignores refinements, which is what you would expect. ``` Top level using method created with no refinements: #<Method: A#b() t/t43.rb:30> #<Method: B#b() t/t43.rb:26> #<UnboundMethod: A#b() t/t43.rb:30> #<UnboundMethod: B#b() t/t43.rb:26> ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 15

[ruby-core:126055] [Ruby Feature#15222] Add a way to distinguish between Struct classes with and without keyword initializer
by Earlopain (Earlopain _) 11 Jul '26

11 Jul '26

Issue #15222 has been updated by Earlopain (Earlopain _). Status changed from Open to Closed Added a while ago via https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18008 ---------------------------------------- Feature #15222: Add a way to distinguish between Struct classes with and without keyword initializer https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15222#change-118053 * Author: pluff (Pavel Shutsin) * Status: Closed ---------------------------------------- With Ruby 2.5.0 Struct subclasses can have different `initialize` arguments list based on `keyword_init` option. However, there is no way in Ruby to distinguish Structs with keyword arguments syntax and without. I propose a class method `keyword_init?` that will allow developers to understand if given structure has keyword based initializer or not. Example use case for serialization: ``` Foo = Struct.new(:foo, keyword_init: true) Bar = Struct.new(:bar) def dump_and_load_struct(object) serialized = object.to_h object.class.new(object.class.keyword_init? ? serialized : serialized.values) end dump_and_load_struct(Foo.new(foo: 1)) # #<struct Foo foo=1> dump_and_load_struct(Bar.new(2)) # #<struct Bar bar=1> ``` An issue that might be related: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14314 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:126054] [Ruby Feature#10949] Time is WB unprotected
by Earlopain (Earlopain _) 11 Jul '26

11 Jul '26

Issue #10949 has been updated by Earlopain (Earlopain _). Status changed from Open to Closed It's WB protected since https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/1c0127ed5e1aaf1386e2176e499d4cb25d171a21 ---------------------------------------- Feature #10949: Time is WB unprotected https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10949#change-118050 * Author: sylvain.joyeux (Sylvain Joyeux) * Status: Closed ---------------------------------------- Ruby's built-in Time object is shady. Unfortunately, it is an object that can commonly be created in big numbers (think logs or stuff like that), and since they don't store relationship with other objects they are perfect candidate for the oldgen. I don't really know if there is a kind of policy about which built-in Ruby objects should be sunny or not, so I just put this as a feature request (as opposed to having it as a bug) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0