# Glibc detected error!

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/glibc-detected-error/180772>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [December 28, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/glibc-detected-error/180772 "2009-12-28T20:57:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sams](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@sams](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sams)\
**Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/glibc-detected-error/180772/1 "2009-12-28T20:57:11Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sams](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@sams](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sams)\
**Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/glibc-detected-error/180772/2 "2009-12-28T22:04:05Z")

</div>

“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)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sams](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@sams](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sams)\
**Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/glibc-detected-error/180772/3 "2009-12-28T22:10:17Z")

</div>

> 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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sams](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@sams](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sams)\
**Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/glibc-detected-error/180772/4 "2009-12-28T22:30:04Z")

</div>

On 12/28/2009 2:10 PM, Sam Sen wrote:

> 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](http://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.