glibc detected error!

[Sam Sen]

running ruby 1.9.1p376 which i compiled on my centos 5.4 box.
All was well and then all of a sudden I get an error saying:

*** glibc detected *** ruby: realloc(): invalid pointer: 0x088a5dd4 ***

Not sure what it means but I ended up recompiling and installing. I
shouldn't have to do that! anyone know what it means? this is my first
time using ruby and i would hate to use it if it's buggy.

 

[Marc Heiler]

"Not sure what it means but I ended up recompiling and installing."

If you are man enough to compile from source on your own already, then
at least report your GCC and Glibc version as well. It won't be a
guaranteed reply, because not everyone will have enough knowledge about
glibc inner workings to know when pointers are invalid (or about the
ruby code per se, although there are quite some smart enough to
understand the C code of the inner ruby-c)

"I shouldn't have to do that! anyone know what it means? this is my
first
time using ruby and i would hate to use it if it's buggy."

Noone forces you to use 1.9.x when you are NEW to ruby. Quite the
opposite - if you are new to ruby, use 1.8.x and learn it. Being "buggy"
is relative - ruby 1.6.x was probably "buggier" than 1.8.x and even
within the 1.8.x series you had some releases with a bit more bugs than
others.

If you require stability, use 1.8.x.

I compile that one from source and it works nicely. (My glibc version is
2.9 and the GCC Version is 4.4.2)

 

[Sam Sen]

If you are man enough to compile from source on your own already, then

at least report your GCC and Glibc version as well. It won't be a
guaranteed reply, because not everyone will have enough knowledge about
glibc inner workings to know when pointers are invalid (or about the
ruby code per se, although there are quite some smart enough to
understand the C code of the inner ruby-c)

Well, I updated my gcc package and all is well now.

Noone forces you to use 1.9.x when you are NEW to ruby. Quite the
opposite - if you are new to ruby, use 1.8.x and learn it. Being "buggy"
is relative - ruby 1.6.x was probably "buggier" than 1.8.x and even
within the 1.8.x series you had some releases with a bit more bugs than
others.

If you require stability, use 1.8.x.

Well, considering that 1.9 is so much quicker than 1.8, I opted for 1.8.
No point in learning a new language if I'm going to run an "older"
version that is slower than the "new" release.

 

[Walton Hoops]

Well, I updated my gcc package and all is well now.



Well, considering that 1.9 is so much quicker than 1.8, I opted for 1.8.
No point in learning a new language if I'm going to run an "older"
version that is slower than the "new" release.

Agreed, I see no reason for new projects to use 1.8.x unless one of
their dependencies isn't available for 1.9.x. I've been running 1.9.1
for some time and have yet to run into stability issues.

Also from the ruby-lang.org download page:
"The current stable version is 1.9.1."
and
"Ruby 1.9.1-p376
<ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.9/ruby-1.9.1-p376.tar.gz> (md5:
ebb20550a11e7f1a2fbd6fdec2a3e0a3) Stable Version (/recommended/)"

This says to me that 1.9.1 is the recommended stable release. If it's
not actually stable (meaning production ready, not bug free), than it
shouldn't be the recommended option.