[issue34377] Update valgrind suppressions

Change by Paul Price : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +8213 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34377> ___ ___ Python-

[issue34377] Update valgrind suppressions

New submission from Paul Price : I've found that the valgrind suppressions don't work for me with cpython 3.6.2. Renaming PyObject_Free/PyObject_Realloc to _PyObject_Free/_PyObject_Realloc in the suppressions file works. I've got a patch that I'll put in via a GitHub PR

[issue32889] Valgrind suppressions need updating

New submission from Paul Price <paul.antony.pr...@gmail.com>: Using the current valgrind suppressions (Misc/valgrind-python.supp) results in a lot of noise, e.g.: ==2662549== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==2662549==at 0x4EFD734: address_in_range (obma

[issue17409] resource.setrlimit doesn't respect -1

Paul Price added the comment: Thanks! -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue17409 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe

[issue17409] resource.setrlimit doesn't respect -1

Paul Price added the comment: Not sure how you want patches formatted, so I went for 'git format-patch'. Also, this is my first attempt at writing ReST and my first attempt at writing docs for Python, so you may want to double-check I didn't screw up the syntax or style. Hopefully

[issue17409] resource.setrlimit doesn't respect -1

Paul Price added the comment: P.S. This is relative to the 'default' branch in the public cpython. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue17409

[issue17409] resource.setrlimit doesn't respect -1

Paul Price added the comment: That's good; it doesn't have what I added to the description of RLIMIT_NOFILE, but perhaps you chose to leave that out on purpose. Since both unlimited and infinite are both used in different contexts, perhaps we should use both, e.g., infinite/unlimited

[issue17409] resource.setrlimit doesn't respect -1

Paul Price added the comment: You missed out an is: Raises :exc:`ValueError` if an invalid resource is specified, if the new soft limit exceeds the hard limit, or if a process tries to raise its hard limit (unless the process has an effective UID of super-user). Specifying

[issue17409] resource.setrlimit doesn't respect -1

Paul Price added the comment: The OSX manpage for setrlimit includes: COMPATIBILITY setrlimit() now returns with errno set to EINVAL in places that histori- cally succeeded. It no longer accepts rlim_cur = RLIM_INFINITY for RLIM_NOFILE. Use rlim_cur = min(OPEN_MAX, rlim_max

[issue17409] resource.setrlimit doesn't respect -1

New submission from Paul Price: The docs for resource.setrlimit (http://docs.python.org/2.7/library/resource.html#resource.setrlimit) state: The limits argument must be a tuple (soft, hard) of two integers describing the new limits. A value of -1 can be used to specify the maximum possible

[issue12612] Valgrind suppressions

Paul Price pr...@astro.princeton.edu added the comment: Welcome. Thank you! -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue12612 ___ ___ Python

[issue12612] Valgrind suppressions

Paul Price pr...@astro.princeton.edu added the comment: Here's the diff with the added sections commented out. -- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file23831/proposed.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http

[issue12612] Valgrind suppressions

New submission from Paul Price pr...@astro.princeton.edu: I am running Python 2.7.1 under Valgrind 3.6.1 on a x86_64 GNU/Linux box. Valgrind is flagging errors that are not covered by the standard suppressions file (Misc/valgrind-python.supp; after uncommenting the part I'm supposed to), e.g