Well, they should be fixed now :-) Regards
Antoine. On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:42:15 +0100 Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:39:42 -0500 > Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > > We could then maybe try to get some > > > > people pound on this at the PyCon sprints. Otherwise I'm reluctant to > > > skip > > > > it since they are legitimate leaks that should be get fixed. > > > > > > Well it's the old well-known issue with pseudo-"permanent" references > > > not being appropriately managed/cleaned up. Which only shows when > > > calling Py_Initialize/Py_Finalize multiple times, or using > > > sub-interpreters. > > > > > > > Could we tweak the report to somehow ignore the permanent refcounts for > > just this test? If not then we might as well leave it out since that number > > will never hit 0. > > I can't think of any way to specifically ignore them (if we knew where > they are we could just fix the refleaks :-)). > > Regards > > Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
