Walter Dörwald <walter at livinglogic.de> writes: > Michael Hudson wrote: > >> [...] >>> >>>>test_codeccallbacks leaked 1107 references >> [...] >>>but there seem to be real leaks here. >> In a perverse kind of way, phew :-) Wouldn't want to have gone to all >> this effort to uncover *nothing* but a bunch of false alarms... > > I've fixed two of the leaks. Cool. Do you think that's it for real leaks in test_codeccallbacks? > > [...] >> In general (not sure about these tests) you want to run each test a >> few time to let things settle down before measuring the effect on >> gettotalrefcount(). > > I think I'll try that, but this will take ages to run. No kidding. > Meanwhile here is the result of my patch for the complete test > suite: > > http://styx.livinglogic.de/~walter/reflog3.txt > > (This includes only unittest based tests) Cool. Is this from CVS head? I thought a bunch of leaks in arrays had already been fixed. > It would simplify hunting leaks if we separated tests that are > known to change the total refcount from the rest by moving > them to separate test methods or even test cases. Sure would! Not sure that's a trivial proposition, though. Cheers, mwh -- I think perhaps we should have electoral collages and construct our representatives entirely of little bits of cloth and papier mache. -- Owen Dunn, ucam.chat, from his review of the year
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