On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
[MvL]
I think it would be possible to have two versions of
_PyGC_REFS_UNTRACKED, one being, say, -5.
_PyGC_REFS_UNTRACKED_AND_KEEP_IT_THAT_WAY would be what you get
when you call PyObject_GC_UnTrack; the code to do
Am 26.09.2010 12:54, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
[MvL]
I think it would be possible to have two versions of
_PyGC_REFS_UNTRACKED, one being, say, -5.
_PyGC_REFS_UNTRACKED_AND_KEEP_IT_THAT_WAY would be what you get
when you
Looks like 2.7 changes introduced to exempt dicts and tuples from
cyclic gc if they obviously can't be in cycles has some unintended
consequences. Specifically, if an extension module calls
PyObject_GC_UnTrack() on a dict it _does not want tracked_, Python can
start tracking the dict again.
I
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:14:32 -0400
Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like 2.7 changes introduced to exempt dicts and tuples from
cyclic gc if they obviously can't be in cycles has some unintended
consequences. Specifically, if an extension module calls
PyObject_GC_UnTrack() on a
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:14:32 -0400
Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like 2.7 changes introduced to exempt dicts and tuples from
cyclic gc if they obviously can't be in cycles has some unintended
I assume this is unintended because (a) the docs weren't changed to
warn about this; and, (b) it's wrong ;-)
It seems Jim is happy with (or has at least accepted) the behavior
change. Would you still like to see it fixed (or, rather, have the
2.6 state restored)?
I think it would be possible
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.dewrote:
I think it would be possible to have two versions of
_PyGC_REFS_UNTRACKED, one being, say, -5.
_PyGC_REFS_UNTRACKED_AND_KEEP_IT_THAT_WAY would be what you get
when you call PyObject_GC_UnTrack; the code to do automatic
Am 24.09.2010 23:22, schrieb Daniel Stutzbach:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de
mailto:mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I think it would be possible to have two versions of
_PyGC_REFS_UNTRACKED, one being, say, -5.
[Tim]
I assume this is unintended because (a) the docs weren't changed to
warn about this; and, (b) it's wrong ;-)
[Martin v. Löwis]
It seems Jim is happy with (or has at least accepted) the behavior
change. Would you still like to see it fixed (or, rather, have the
2.6 state restored)?
