Guido van Rossum added the comment: The cycle will be cleaned up (and the message printed) when the garbage collector runs next. Your demo doesn't do anything else, so it never allocates memory, so it never runs gc.collect(). But that's only because it's a toy program.
Maybe it's time to look into http://code.google.com/p/tulip/issues/detail?id=42 ? (It proposes to run gc.collect() occasionally when the loop is idle.) I am also concerned about Antoine's point -- the patch may actually *prolong* the life of the traceback. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:15 PM, STINNER Victor <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > STINNER Victor added the comment: > >> Do you have an example of code that behaves differently with this patch? I >> can't find any. > > I didn't check in the Python standard library, but the reference cycle is > obvious, and I hate such issue. It introduces tricky issues like memory leaks. > > Here is an example to demonstrate the issue. The "DELETE OBJECT" message is > never displayed, so the object is never deleted (memory leak). > > Comment "fut.set_exception(err)" line to delete the object, or apply attached > patch. > > ---------- > Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file33238/never_deleted.py > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue20032> > _______________________________________ ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20032> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
