[ruby-core:99479] [Ruby master Bug#14607] Fix use of the rb_profile_frames start parameter

[ruby-core:99479] [Ruby master Bug#14607] Fix use of the rb_profile_frames start parameter

[dylan.smith]

Issue #14607 has been updated by dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith).

File deleted (fix-use-of-the-rb_profile_frames-start-parameter.patch)

The original patch has a merge conflict.  However, I have opened a pull request with the fix for this issue (https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/2713) that has been rebased to resolve the merge conflict.

----------------------------------------
Bug #14607: Fix use of the rb_profile_frames start parameter
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14607#change-86933

* Author: dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Backport: 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
rb_profile_frames was always behaving as if the value given for the start parameter was 0.

The reason for this was that it would check `if (start > 0) {` then `continue` without updating the control frame pointer or anything other than decrementing `start`.

This bug applies to all branches under normal maintenance, from ruby 2.3 to trunk.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

[ruby-core:103534] [Ruby master Bug#14607] Fix use of the rb_profile_frames start parameter

[dylan.smith]

Issue #14607 has been updated by dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith).


> I need to remember why such special (additional) calculation is done

I'm not sure what you mean by additional calculation.  It is decrementing `start` when non-zero as expected to loop over that number of frames, it just was missing the corresponding update to `cfp`.

Could this get another look?

----------------------------------------
Bug #14607: Fix use of the rb_profile_frames start parameter
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14607#change-91635

* Author: dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Backport: 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
rb_profile_frames was always behaving as if the value given for the start parameter was 0.

The reason for this was that it would check `if (start > 0) {` then `continue` without updating the control frame pointer or anything other than decrementing `start`.

This bug applies to all branches under normal maintenance, from ruby 2.3 to trunk.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

[ruby-core:108815] [Ruby master Bug#14607] Fix use of the rb_profile_frames start parameter

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

Issue #14607 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).

Assignee set to ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
Status changed from Open to Assigned

I assume that "additional calculation" means the code `if (start > 0) { start--; continue; }`, but the "additional calculation" seems to make no sense at all to me either.

```
    for (i=0; i<limit && cfp != end_cfp;) {
        if (VM_FRAME_RUBYFRAME_P(cfp)) {
            if (start > 0) {
                start--;
                continue;
            }
```

It is essentially `start = 0;`. The proposed fix seems reasonable to me. @ko1 What do you think?

----------------------------------------
Bug #14607: Fix use of the rb_profile_frames start parameter
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14607#change-97892

* Author: dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith)
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
* Backport: 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
rb_profile_frames was always behaving as if the value given for the start parameter was 0.

The reason for this was that it would check `if (start > 0) {` then `continue` without updating the control frame pointer or anything other than decrementing `start`.

This bug applies to all branches under normal maintenance, from ruby 2.3 to trunk.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

[ruby-core:116233] [Ruby master Bug#14607] Fix use of the rb_profile_frames start parameter

[dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith) via ruby-core]

Issue #14607 has been updated by dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith).


> The original patch has a merge conflict. However, I have opened a pull request with the fix for this issue (https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/2713) that has been rebased to resolve the merge conflict.

The github PR has been merged, so this issue can be closed now.  It doesn't look like I have permission to change its status though.

----------------------------------------
Bug #14607: Fix use of the rb_profile_frames start parameter
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14607#change-106253

* Author: dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith)
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
* Backport: 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
rb_profile_frames was always behaving as if the value given for the start parameter was 0.

The reason for this was that it would check `if (start > 0) {` then `continue` without updating the control frame pointer or anything other than decrementing `start`.

This bug applies to all branches under normal maintenance, from ruby 2.3 to trunk.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
 ______________________________________________
 ruby-core mailing list -- ruby-core@ml.ruby-lang.org
 To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-core-leave@ml.ruby-lang.org
 ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/ruby-core.ml.ruby-lang.org/