[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Ah, funny. I ended up doing the same thing as you without remembering about it! -- status: pending -> closed superseder: -> Python sub-interpreter test ___ Python tracker _

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Christian Heimes added the comment: Antoine, is the test still required? #10914 has introduced tests for the subinterpreter. -- assignee: -> pitrou resolution: -> out of date status: open -> pending ___ Python tracker

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: See also #10914. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://ma

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > Quote msg83564 "This is still a good idea.", in which case shouldn't > someone push this forward, failing that close as out of date? Just because someone doesn't "push this forward" doesn't mean it's out of date. -- _

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Mark Lawrence added the comment: Quote msg83564 "This is still a good idea.", in which case shouldn't someone push this forward, failing that close as out of date? -- nosy: +BreamoreBoy ___ Python tracker

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Changes by Terry J. Reedy : -- versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 2.6, Python 3.0 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list U

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: This is still a good idea. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Christian Heimes added the comment: If fixed the problem with multiple reinitialization in r60477. It took me quite some time to find the right spot. __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ _

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Christian Heimes added the comment: I like to keep the test as simple as possible. Here is a new file that shows Python crashes in the third Py_Finalize(). Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file9339/test_reinit.c __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Perhaps ROUNDS, CAUSE_SEGFAULT and VERBOSE could be command-line rather than compile-time options? -- nosy: +pitrou __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Christian Heimes added the comment: Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Martin v. Löwis added the comment: > > I'm not sure what the purpose of this test is. When would it pass, when > would it fail? I don't think it is a bug if a > Py_Initialize()/Py_Finalize() cycle loses references. Today my attempts t

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: I'm not sure what the purpose of this test is. When would it pass, when would it fail? I don't think it is a bug if a Py_Initialize()/Py_Finalize() cycle loses references. -- nosy: +loewis __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue1977] Python reinitialization test

New submission from Christian Heimes: The patch adds a new test and a new executable. The executable calls Py_Initialze() and Py_Finalize() multiple times in a row. The test also shows that Python looses about 35 references in each round. $ ./test_reinit round 1 [7751 refs] round 2 [7797 refs] r