Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > Note that we are not making any new requirements on python here.
But you are. So far, there was no guarantee whatsoever about the state of Python when malloc is called. You are now introducing a requirement that Python must be in a certain state to make it correct to call malloc. IOW, this innocent change actually introduces a new feature. > So, although you have nothing against the patch as such I think it's harmless - I don't think it is a good patch. It shouldn't matter whether or not it is applied (i.e. there is no change to Python that I can see). > you are against it on the principle that I am using it to > facilitate something that you disapprove of. > I find that a quite unreasonable position. No. It's not the usage that I disapprove but, but the new requirement on Python. If you were able to do your profiling in a manner compatible with (the current) Python, it would be certainly fine with me. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9787> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
