RetroSearch Browse

Mon May 10 12:19:49 EDT 2004 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-May/044735.html

The following was posted in the last 25 hours on c.l.p:

"Xaver Hinterhuber" <xaver_hinterhuber at web.de> wrote in message
news:c7o6al$i1j$1 at online.de...
>     codeObject = new.code(
>       0, # argcount
>       0, # nlocals
>       0, # stacksize
>       0, # flags
>       codeString, # code
>       (), # consts
>       (), # names
>       (), # varnames
>       'content', # filename
>       'content', # name
>       3, # first line number
>       codeString # lnotab
>       )
>     f = new.function(codeObject, dict, 'f')
>     f()
>
> Everything runs fine, until the function is called with f().
> When python tries to execute f(), the core dump happens.
> I don't have any clue why python core dumps.
> The codeString is nothing complex, its a one-liner.

... but, as too typical of new posters, not posted ;-)

My question: I understand that core dumping by the Python interpreter is
normally considered a bug -- one that should be reported on SF -- and
fixed.  But does that principle apply to this sort of use (or probably
abuse) of the new module.  In other words, does the 'no core dump' contract
include a 'byte code compiled by the interpreter' proviso.  Or is ceval
intended to be robust against random strings masquerading as valid byte
code (which would seem require an InvalidByteCode exception).  Or in still
other words, is there a bug that I should encourage reporting of, or is
'don't do that' the extent of a proper response?

Terry J. Reedy

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-May/044735.html below:

[Python-Dev] Is core dump always a bug? Advice requested