> No, but assuming there isn't a real bug here, repeating gc.collect() until > it returns 0 would be -- as the self-contained program showed, we *may* need > to call gc.collect() as many as 4 times before that happens. And if it's > legit that it may need 4, I see no reason for believing there's any a priori > upper bound on how many may be needed. And the test could have failed all > along, even in 2.2; it apparently depends on how many times gc just happens > to run before we get to test_gc. > > I'll check in a "drain it" fix to test_gc, but I'm still squirming. Hold off. Neil said he thought there was a bug introduced early December -- that's before 2.2 was release! --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4