On Jan 9, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: > > correct. Isn't the need to call gc.collect() explicitly a bit of a puzzle? Or is it just speeding up something that would happen eventually?
> > On Jan 9, 1:18 pm, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sunday, January 9, 2011 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, ron_m wrote: >> >>> To get the leak the __del__method has to be in the class. The gc.collect() >>> as suggested by Massimo cured the leak for the exec code case I believe >>> because gc.collect() runs a test on the objects to see if there are any >>> external references, finds none, and therefore allows them to be removed >>> from the heap. >> >> Sorry if I'm being dense, but to be clear, the leak can happen with exec >> even if the class does not have a __del__ method (i.e., web2py's case), and >> that kind of leak can be prevented using gc.collect (the recent fix put into >> place). However, if the class has a __del__ method, you get a leak even if >> exec is not being used, and that kind of leak is not resolved by gc.collect. >> Is that right?
