> [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. Oops, I think I may have been confused by that one. > > 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!). OK. --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