[Guido] > I think there is talk though to make it impossible to turn off > pymalloc in the future (you can still turn it off in Python 2.3). I haven't heard such talk before. There was talk of making it impossible to compile without cyclic gc, and-- indeed --that was done for 2.3. > I haven't heard of platforms where turning off pymalloc is required -- > unless we hear about those, I expect that for 2.4, pymalloc may no > longer be optional. (The reason: maintaining two versions of the same > code is a pain, and usually the version that's not selected by default > is severely broken after a few releases.) We never build without WITH_PYMALLOC defined anymore, so under the "if it's not tested, it's broken" theory, it's already broken <0.5 wink>. OTOH, there are really only two substantive WITH_PYMALLOC #ifdefs in the codebase, and one of them just surrounds the bulk of the code in obmalloc.c. So as untested features go, I bet this one is less problematic than WITHOUT_COMPLEX (which is tested in many more places!).
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