https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
Maurizio Paolini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
--- Comment #12 from Maurizio Paolini ---
(In reply to Maurizio Paolini from comment #11)
> actually, the patch is in
>
[WRONG] > https://phabricator.kde.org/differential/revision/edit/26333/
>
> I am not sure that I am using phabricator correctly and
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
--- Comment #11 from Maurizio Paolini ---
actually, the patch is in
https://phabricator.kde.org/differential/revision/edit/26333/
I am not sure that I am using phabricator correctly and couldn't find a place
where to indicate that it should be used ag
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
--- Comment #10 from Maurizio Paolini ---
(In reply to David E. Narvaez from comment #8)
> (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #7)
> > The patch from comment #2 prevents the tuple from being de-refcounted all
> > the way down to 0 (because it adds a
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
--- Comment #9 from Maurizio Paolini ---
(In reply to David E. Narvaez from comment #6)
> (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #4)
> > So, after looking at the code and the documentation, I suspect the issue is
> > not really the reference count of th
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
--- Comment #8 from David E. Narvaez ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #7)
> The patch from comment #2 prevents the tuple from being de-refcounted all
> the way down to 0 (because it adds a bogus unowned reference), so the tuple
> is leaked, an
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
--- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler ---
The patch from comment #2 prevents the tuple from being de-refcounted all the
way down to 0 (because it adds a bogus unowned reference), so the tuple is
leaked, and its continued existence also keeps the arguments re
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
--- Comment #6 from David E. Narvaez ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #4)
> So, after looking at the code and the documentation, I suspect the issue is
> not really the reference count of the tuple itself, but of the individual
> arguments, wh
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
Franco Pasquarelli changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||franco.pasquarelli@unicatt.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
Kevin Kofler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kevin.kof...@chello.at
--- Comment #4 from Kevin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
David E. Narvaez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@laxu.de
--- Comment #3 from David E. Na
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
--- Comment #2 from Maurizio Paolini ---
The following diff:
-
$ git diff
diff --git a/scripting/python_scripter.cc b/scripting/python_scripter.cc
index 62a7409b..57e09255 100644
--- a/scripting/pytho
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
--- Comment #1 from Maurizio Paolini ---
It seems that the first appearance of strange values for Py_REFCNT
appear in the retdict.get function called within
CompiledPythonScript PythonScripter::compile( const char* code )
if file scripting/python_scri
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401512
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdie...@gmail.com
--
You are receiving this mail
14 matches
Mail list logo
