Re: GMPY: divm() memory leak revisited

Alex Martelli wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > Unfortunately, I don't have any means of testing this theory. > > Yep -- I reproduced the memory leak you mentioned, and easily fixed it > (exactly as you suggest) in the current CVS version of gmpy (meant to be > "1

Re: GMPY: divm() memory leak revisited

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Unfortunately, I don't have any means of testing this theory. Yep -- I reproduced the memory leak you mentioned, and easily fixed it (exactly as you suggest) in the current CVS version of gmpy (meant to be "1.01 release candidate"). I need to

Re: GMPY: divm() memory leak revisited

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Since the following discussion took place (unresolved), > > > > I've ke