On 26/08/08 at 15:43 +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 26/08/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 26/08/08 at 14:48 +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > If you mean the Japanese list then don't look at me. > > > > > > I have posted about the issue on the English ruby-core and got no > > replies. > > > > > > It is expected that the two objects point to the same fd, that's what > > > the code does. > > > > > > However, the issue I tried to raise here is that the Ruby in Debian > > > behaves completely differently when a comment is added in the code. > > > The latest 1.8.7 release fails a bit later with the comment but still > > > fails. > > > > > > Well, the comment might cause a slightly different scheduling to happen. > > Here, it fails both with and without the comment. > > It should not be the case. As I understand it the whole file is parsed > and only then executed so the comment should not be present anymore > once the code is running. > > For me it fails about once out of ten runs with the comment and always > without it.
Still, the startup time might be slightly different, and that might trigger a different behaviour. Because, for example, the interpreter might do one read() in the first case, and two in the second case. Simply adding lines of comments to the file seems to change the iteration of the first failure. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
