Michael,
I'm glad you are taking this on.  Thanks.  It must have been a tedious job.
See comments below --->


Michael King-2 wrote:
> 
> I have applied the MBARI patches to 1.8.6 p287. About half the hunks had
> to
> be applied by hand. In doing so I noticed 1 hunk that looked odd. The hunk
> was in gc.c, in the function ruby_xmalloc, the odd line is:
>    if ((malloc_increase+=size) > malloc_limit) {
> 
> was is intended to change the value of malloc_increase in the if
> statement?
> 
> --->  Yes, that is the intent.  You will see this in ruby_xrealloc() and
> ruby_xmalloc()
>         Doing it this way saves a jump at the machine code level.
> 
> When running test/runner.rb for the patched Ruby I am seeing the follwing
> error and failure:
> 
>   1) Failure:
> test_should_propagate_signaled(TestBeginEndBlock)
> [./test/ruby/test_beginendblock.rb:82]:
> <""> expected to be =~
> </Interrupt$/>.
> 
> --->  I see this quite often with both patched and unpatched Ruby.
>         Does anyone know why?
> 
> 
>   2) Error:
> test_object_id_collision(YAML_Unit_Tests):
> RuntimeError: id collision in ordered map
>     ./test/yaml/test_yaml.rb:1281:in `test_object_id_collision'
> 
> --->  This one is worrisome.  I've never seen it.
>         I've never run tests against unpatched 1.8.6
>         Do either of these failures occur there? 
> 
> ruby -v:
> ruby 1.8.6 (2009-1-18 MBARI 7/0x4770 on patchlevel 287) [i686-linux]
> 
> 

Monitor the process size while running the test suite.
If MBARI7 is working properly, you should observe that the size of the main
test process
near the end of its run is about 30MB less than when running with unpatched
1.8.6.

- brent

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-ruby-core%3A19846---Bug--744--memory-leak-in-callcc--tp20447794p21614475.html
Sent from the ruby-core mailing list archive at Nabble.com.