Repository navigation
Review usages of Integer#size in the gem #1057
Description
From @XrXr in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20614#note-8, we should review usages of Integer#size as it is not equal to pointer size on Windows.
From @XrXr in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20614#note-8, we should review usages of Integer#size as it is not equal to pointer size on Windows.
Activity
eregon commentedon Jul 25, 2024
https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aruby-concurrency%2Fconcurrent-ruby%200.size&type=code
concurrent-ruby/lib/concurrent-ruby/concurrent/thread_safe/util.rb
Line 10 in cadc8de
concurrent-ruby/lib/concurrent-ruby/concurrent/utility/native_integer.rb
Lines 7 to 8 in cadc8de
concurrent-ruby/lib/concurrent-ruby/concurrent/thread_safe/util/xor_shift_random.rb
Line 32 in cadc8de
oaksprout commentedon Jul 28, 2026
Would you want this one done? — Doing the Integer#size / Windows pointer-size portability review at the three flagged locations. If yes, we'll do it and open a PR; if not, say so (or just ignore this) and we won't touch it.
How it works: an AI agent does the work against your write-up; it's independently checked in a clean container (your test suite, network off) before anything reaches you; a human reviews it, submits it, and answers the review. You keep full control — nothing lands unless you merge it.
Recent examples of the same flow on other projects: strawberry-graphql/strawberry#4555, nextcloud/tasks#3220, gramps-project/gramps-web#1320.
We're testing whether work offered this way is useful to maintainers — a blunt "no" is as helpful as a yes.
bensheldon commentedon Jul 28, 2026
@oaksprout no.
If you're confident that your process creates value, simply propose the change via a PR and we will review it. As a maintainer, I'm happy to interact with a contributor that is present and committed to stewarding their change. I have no way to evaluate that from a comment such as yours.
oaksprout commentedon Jul 29, 2026
@bensheldon on your terms — the change, proposed via a PR: #1110. All four
0.sizewidth-inference sites fixed with the idiom the issue's cited note recommends; behaviour identical everywhere the old code was right. Checked in a clean container before it went up; full record in the PR. The human sender answers the review and stays with the change.