Re: [Python-Dev] cpython (3.6): replace usage of Py_VA_COPY with the (C99) standard va_copy
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, at 00:04, Victor Stinner wrote: > 2016-09-23 8:47 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Peterson : > > I'm being flippant here because of the triviality of the change. Anyone > > using Py_VA_COPY or Py_MEMCPY can fix their code in a backwards and > > forwards compatible manner in 7 seconds with a sed command. > > Python 3 had the same argument with 2to3: run 2to3 once, and you are > done. C99 is a new thing for Python >= 3.6, but when you want to > support Python 2.7 and 3.5, you are stuck at Visual Studio 2010 which > is less happy with C99 than VS 2015... Python 2.7 doesn't provide Py_VA_COPY, so using it wouldn't do you much good anyway in term of Python 2/3 compatibility. This is not like 2to3 because the automatic transform is correct in all cases. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] cpython (3.6): replace usage of Py_VA_COPY with the (C99) standard va_copy
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, at 09:32, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:47:20PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 04:44, Victor Stinner wrote: > > > 2016-09-22 8:02 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Peterson : > > > > Just dump the compat macros in Python 4.0 I think. > > > > > > Please don't. Python 3 was so painful because we decided to make > > > millions of tiny backward incompatible changes. To have a smooth > > > Python 4.0 release, we should only remove things which were already > > > deprecated since at least 2 cycles, and well documented as deprecated. > > > > I'm being flippant here because of the triviality of the change. Anyone > > using Py_VA_COPY or Py_MEMCPY can fix their code in a backwards and > > forwards compatible manner in 7 seconds with a sed command. > > Sorry, I haven't been following this thread in detail, so perhaps I've > misunderstood. Are you assuming that anyone who is building Python from > source is automatically able to diagnose C level build failures and > known how to fix them using sed? I am assuming authors of CPython extensions possess those skills. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Code quality report
Hi, here is a short code quality report. Overall we are in a good shape for Python 3.6.0. I'm a bit worried about the amount of security bugs, though. Some haven't progressed in more than a year. Coverity Scan - 3.6.0b1 added a bunch of new defects, most of them were false positives. Python is down again to zero open defects (default branch on Linux X86_64). total defects: 1,115 outstanding defects:0 dismissed: 169 fixed: 946 https://scan.coverity.com/projects/python C code coverage --- I have updated my LCOV report (GCC on Linux X86_64). Our test coverage is quite good. line coverage: 81.9 % function coverage: 92.5 % https://tiran.bitbucket.io/python-lcov/ security bugs - I'm seeing 46 open security bugs on our bug tracker, http://bit.ly/2cYWZy0 . configure / compile warnings Python configures and compiles without warnings with GCC on Linux X86_64. Clang emits four warnings for unreachable code. All warnings are harmless. On i686 I'm still getting four warnings in the KeccakCodePackage (sha3), https://bugs.python.org/issue28117. Regards, Christian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Code quality report
Thanks for watching our back, Christian! Regarding the security bugs, what would be most helpful? Code reviews? Patches? Testing? Just commits? Hopefully there are some people here who want to help making Python 3.6 more secure (I hear this list has thousands of lurkers :-). On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Christian Heimes wrote: > Hi, > > here is a short code quality report. Overall we are in a good shape for > Python 3.6.0. I'm a bit worried about the amount of security bugs, > though. Some haven't progressed in more than a year. > > > Coverity Scan > - > > 3.6.0b1 added a bunch of new defects, most of them were false positives. > Python is down again to zero open defects (default branch on Linux X86_64). > > total defects: 1,115 > outstanding defects:0 > dismissed: 169 > fixed: 946 > https://scan.coverity.com/projects/python > > > C code coverage > --- > > I have updated my LCOV report (GCC on Linux X86_64). Our test coverage > is quite good. > > line coverage: 81.9 % > function coverage: 92.5 % > https://tiran.bitbucket.io/python-lcov/ > > > security bugs > - > > I'm seeing 46 open security bugs on our bug tracker, > http://bit.ly/2cYWZy0 . > > > configure / compile warnings > > > Python configures and compiles without warnings with GCC on Linux > X86_64. Clang emits four warnings for unreachable code. All warnings are > harmless. > > On i686 I'm still getting four warnings in the KeccakCodePackage (sha3), > https://bugs.python.org/issue28117. > > Regards, > Christian > > > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
