Bug #5719: Hash::[] can't handle 100000+ args

I was able to duplicate this issue with the above code in 1.9.2-p290 It didn't matter if I ran it through IRB or from the command line.

It looks to be a variable argument length thing, not a Hash thing in particular. https://gist.github.com/5037bf83d28c2c119c44 Edit: Not just variable argument length. Ruby just won't have any of your guff if you intend on passing any method a very large number of arguments. https://gist.github.com/d259449ff7bedef92c2e This is reasonable, I think.

• ruby -v changed from 1.9.3-p0 to -

Hi, In message "Re: [ruby-core:41511] [ruby-trunk - Bug #5719][Open] Hash::[] can't handle 100000+ args" on Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:30:44 +0900, Nick Quaranto <[e-mail]> writes: |I couldn't pin down an exact size for when/how this occurs, but I have code that was creating hashes just fine with Hash::[] with 300k+ arguments. Unfortunately we are living in the very restricted real world. ;-) matz.

i shall give you four hints: stack, heap, push, pop ruby's behavior is expected. you can pass Hash::[] an array instead i think. Hash[[[:a, 1], [:b, 2]]] #=> {:a=>1, :b=>2}

This is related to http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/982. In terms of what needs to be done, it may even be "the same" bug, although 982 is about a very long array literal, and this is about a very long array created by a splash. At http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/982, Koichi Sasada said 「すみません，1.9.3 の後の課題とさせて下さい．」, i.e. "sorry, but let's deal with this after 1.9.3". So now may be a good time :-).

• Category set to core
• Assignee set to ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
• Target version set to 2.0.0

(2011/12/07 14:26), Martin Dürst wrote: > This is related to http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/982. In terms of what needs to be done, it may even be "the same" bug, although 982 is about a very long array literal, and this is about a very long array created by a splash. At http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/982, Koichi Sasada said 「すみません，1.9.3 の後の課題とさせて下さい．」, i.e. "sorry, but let's deal with this after 1.9.3". So now may be a good time :-). Thank you. It is correct. And there are no progress on it. Sorry. Should we solve this issue as high priority? -- // SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net

Hello Koichi, On 2012/02/25 13:34, SASADA Koichi wrote: > (2011/12/07 14:26), Martin Dürst wrote: >> This is related to http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/982. In terms of what needs to be done, it may even be "the same" bug, although 982 is about a very long array literal, and this is about a very long array created by a splash. At http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/982, Koichi Sasada said 「すみません，1.9.3 の後の課題とさせて下さい．」, i.e. "sorry, but let's deal with this after 1.9.3". So now may be a good time :-). > > Thank you. It is correct. Thanks for the confirmation. > And there are no progress on it. Sorry. > Should we solve this issue as high priority? I'm not sure "high priority" is the right word. It's always possible to work around it. But it's highly annoying when somebody hits this issue. It's also highly counterintuitive: Ruby deals with Arrays of any size automatically, but then can't handle the same size in a literal. So I very much think that 2.0 is a good point to get rid of this problem. I'm not sure what's involved in fixing it, but if there's something I can contribute, I'll be glad to help. Regards, Martin.

• Status changed from Open to Assigned