SASADA Koichi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> EustŠ“uio Rangel wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2007 2:25 PM, EustŠ“uio Rangel <eustaquiorangel / gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, the threads should run and show the results intermingled even if
>>> there is no contents on the FIFO.
>> I mean, if there is no content on the FIFO, the two threads that read
>> the regular files must not be stopped. Kind of the JRuby example where
>> there is always the output of (0) and (2) even if (1) is blocked.
> 
> I fixed this issue on my laptop.  I'll commit after refactoring.
> 

My understanding of Ruby IO is that the example given ought to be 
possible with or without native threads, yes? I had assumed that since 
Ruby IO uses select() it should allow thread scheduling to continue. 
Perhaps that's not used everywhere, or perhaps you have to explicitly 
say you want to use it?

What is the fix for Ruby 1.9? Did you modify blocking IO to release the 
global lock?

- Charlie