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

[ruby-core:112552] [Ruby master Bug#19461] Time.local performance tanks in forked process (on macOS only?)
by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 07 Oct '25

07 Oct '25

Issue #19461 has been reported by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19461: Time.local performance tanks in forked process (on macOS only?) https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19461 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- The following program demonstrates a performance regression in forked child processes when invoking `Time.local`: ```ruby require 'benchmark' require 'time' def sir_local_alot result = Benchmark.measure do 10_000.times do tm = ::Time.local(2023) end end $stderr.puts result end sir_local_alot pid = fork do sir_local_alot end Process.wait(pid) ``` On Linux the performance is similar, but on macOS, the performance is over 100x worse on my M1 laptop. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

5 10

[ruby-core:116946] [Ruby master Bug#20302] Multiple refinements cannot be applied to the same module
by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 06 Oct '25

06 Oct '25

Issue #20302 has been reported by mame (Yusuke Endoh). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20302: Multiple refinements cannot be applied to the same module https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20302 * Author: mame (Yusuke Endoh) * Status: Open * Assignee: shugo (Shugo Maeda) * ruby -v: ruby 3.4.0dev (2024-02-20T07:17:20Z master a605234bfa) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- If we are using multiple refinements for the Kernel module, it seems that only the last refinement is enabled. In the following example, we can call `f2` of M2, which is enabled later. but cannot call `f1` of M1. ```ruby module M1 refine(Kernel) do def f1 = :f1 end end module M2 refine(Kernel) do def f2 = :f2 end end class Foo using M1 using M2 def test p f2 #=> :f2 p f1 # expected => :f1 # actual => undefined local variable or method 'f1' for an instance of Foo end end Foo.new.test ``` Note that if I change `refine(Kernel)` to `refine(Object)`, it works as expected. So I think there is a problem only when the refinement target is a module. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 1

[ruby-core:116083] [Ruby master Feature#20163] Introduce #bit_count method on Integer
by garrison (Garrison Jensen) 29 Sep '25

29 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/

12 22

[ruby-core:115552] [Ruby master Misc#20032] Propose @kjtsanaktsidis as a commiter
by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) 27 Sep '25

27 Sep '25

Issue #20032 has been reported by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans). ---------------------------------------- Misc #20032: Propose @kjtsanaktsidis as a commiter https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20032 * Author: jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I'd like to propose @kjtsanaktsidis as a committer, with a focus on bug triaging and fixing. During RubyKaigi 2023, KJ expressed interest in helping triage and fix bugs, and since then, he has fixed numerous bugs. What's most impressive about KJ's contributions is the difficulty of the bugs he has fixed, and the wide range of areas in which he has fixed bugs (GC, threading, FreeBSD support, ractors, rubygems, extensions, tests, old bugs, etc.). Here is a list of bugs KJ has fixed: * #20021 * #19994 * #19928 * #19873 * #19387 * #19680 * #4173 Here is a list of open pull requests submitted by KJ to fix bugs: * #20022 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/9041 * #19991 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/8949 and https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/8856 * #20001 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/8903 * #19717 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/8331 * #19144 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/7295 * #18795 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/5992 In addition to these Redmine issues, KJ has also fixed other bugs: * https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/9a62fd3cbae2ebb60e2f9cad782af1ad18db4319 * https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/76dc327eeffefe02577999fe5f8215f762a581b6 * https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/082962e857833dfc16881cb4dfb44caa175590ba * https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/edee9b6a12ac846d7b3de2d704e170bf28178cb3 * https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/dd406c5a911d2f4a16ce97016666760713540185 * https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/7bd7aee02e303de27d2cddfc5ef47e612d6782cb * https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/05ffc037ad15560cb2c683682c5bc374156571d7 * https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/7867 * https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/7865 * https://github.com/ruby/zlib/commit/3b9fe962d8 * https://github.com/ruby/zlib/commit/c96e8b9a57 In addition to bug fixing, KJ has also proposed and implemented a useful Socket feature: * #19179 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6822 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

8 14

[ruby-core:111742] [Ruby master Feature#19326] Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor
by sdwolfz 25 Sep '25

25 Sep '25

Issue #19326 has been reported by sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi). ---------------------------------------- Feature #19326: Please add a better API for passing a Proc to a Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19326 * Author: sdwolfz (Codruț Gușoi) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Example 1: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = block end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:271:in `new': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError) from scripts/run.rb:9:in `run' from scripts/run.rb:14:in `<main>' ``` Example 2: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Worker.new { 1 } puts worker.run.take ``` Errors with: ``` <internal:ractor>:820:in `make_shareable': Proc's self is not shareable: #<Proc:0x00007f00394c38b8 scripts/run.rb:13> (Ractor::IsolationError) from scripts/run.rb:5:in `initialize' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `new' from scripts/run.rb:13:in `<main>' ``` Example 3: ```ruby class Worker def initialize(&block) @block = Ractor.make_shareable(block) end def run Ractor.new(@block, &:call) end end worker = Ractor.current.instance_eval { Worker.new { 1 } } puts worker.run.take ``` Works, but having `Ractor.current.instance_eval` as a wrapper around the block is not ideal, as Ractor is supposed to be only an implementation detail in Worker. I know about https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243 and the discussion around `proc.bind(nil)`. That would actually be ideal, as for the purposes if why I want this functionality I don't care what `self` is in a block, and the less it has access to the better. The general idea is to have a Ractor be able to lazily execute an arbitrary proc. And all the bindings it would need would be passed explicitly, either through `args` in the constructor or through `send`/`receive`, so `self` would really not matter. The benefit: this would make it so concurrent code can be more easily be implemented with Ractors as currently you can execute an arbitrary proc by passing it to a Thread (but you don't get the nice data isolation). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

6 11

[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) 13 Sep '25

13 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/

8 11

[ruby-core:120073] [Ruby master Feature#20925] Allow boolean operators at beginning of line to continue previous line
by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) 12 Sep '25

12 Sep '25

Issue #20925 has been reported by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20925: Allow boolean operators at beginning of line to continue previous line https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20925 * Author: Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I would like for this to become accepted syntax: condition1 || condition2 condition1 && condition2 condition1 or condition2 condition1 and condition2 This is similar to how method chaining on the second line was added in Ruby 1.9 expr .method And it has the same advantage: when you have a multi-line expression, instead of hunting for the dot or boolean operator at the end of line1, it's right there at the beginning of line2, making the structure very obvious and readable. Please contrast: request.secret_key_base.present? && request.encrypted_signed_cookie_salt.present? && request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? && request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption request.secret_key_base.present? && request.encrypted_signed_cookie_salt.present? && request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? && request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption The first expression must rely on indentation to communicate the multi-line nature of the condition, and even then it's not as immediately obvious as the second expression, where we can see easily and immediately that this is a multi-line `&&` condition. This syntax is also similar to how a trailing comma is allowed in arrays and hashes (and method calls since Ruby 1.9), with the same advantage. It makes for a cleaner diff when you add an element to the array/hash/conditional. Taking the previous example, imagine we are adding the condition `&& request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption`. Now contrast the diff between the two styles: request.secret_key_base.present? && request.encrypted_signed_cookie_salt.present? && - request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? + request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? && + request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption request.secret_key_base.present? && request.encrypted_signed_cookie_salt.present? && request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? + && request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption Based on the above I would say this syntax is natural and consistent with existing Ruby syntactical elements, and would greatly improve code readability. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

7 11

[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: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