[issue3066] FD leak in urllib2

2009-05-03 Thread Gregory P. Smith
Gregory P. Smith added the comment: not reproducable in head as stated. -- resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue3066] FD leak in urllib2

2009-04-25 Thread DSM
DSM added the comment: I can't reproduce in python 2.5.4, 2.6.2, or 2.7 trunk (though I can with 2.4.6 and 2.5) on mac & linux. Quick bisection suggests that it was fixed in r53511 while solving related bug http://bugs.python.org/issue1601399, and the explanation given there is consistent wit

[issue3066] FD leak in urllib2

2009-02-12 Thread Daniel Diniz
Changes by Daniel Diniz : -- nosy: +jjlee ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org

[issue3066] FD leak in urllib2

2009-02-12 Thread Daniel Diniz
Daniel Diniz added the comment: Has (non-unittest) test and proposed (non-diff) patch inline. -- nosy: +ajaksu2, orsenthil stage: -> test needed versions: +Python 2.6 -Python 2.4 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue3066] FD leak in urllib2

2008-09-21 Thread Gregory P. Smith
Changes by Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- assignee: -> gregory.p.smith nosy: +gregory.p.smith ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue3066] FD leak in urllib2

2008-08-29 Thread James Antill
James Antill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: So if I add a: class _WrapForRecv: def __init__(self, obj): self.__obj = obj def __getattr__(self, name): if name == "recv": name = "read" return getattr(self.__obj, name) ...and then change: r.recv =

[issue3066] FD leak in urllib2

2008-06-12 Thread Bohdan Vlasyuk
Bohdan Vlasyuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: The list is not the problem. The problem is the other reference, from "". Also note that the workaround (u.fp.recv = None) removes the second reference. This is fine (at least in CPython), because the socket is destroyed when the refcount re

[issue3066] FD leak in urllib2

2008-06-11 Thread Sharmila Sivakumar
Sharmila Sivakumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Since the socket object is added to a list, a reference to the object always exists right? That would mean that it would not be garbage collected as long as the reference exists. On the other hand, it should also be noted that in close

[issue3066] FD leak in urllib2

2008-06-09 Thread Bohdan Vlasyuk
New submission from Bohdan Vlasyuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: In urllib2.AbstractHTTPHandler.do_open, the following like creates a circular link: r.recv = r.read [r.read is a bound method, so it contains a reference to 'r'. Therefore, r now refers to itself.] If the GC is disabled or doesn't