RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jul 29 08:05:44 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-July/046531.html

Tim Peters wrote:
> [Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy)]
> 
>>I guess it would depend on how consistently it could be provoked.
> 
> That's the rub -- it depends on whether the system realloc() manages
> (in the pre-patch code) to extend the initial empty_ob_item thingie
> in-place, and do all subsequent extends in-place too.  The overall
> odds should be better the shorter the initial list (> 1), but it still
> depends on the system realloc(), and almost certainly depends too on
> the state of the C malloc heap at the time the test begins.

If a shorter list would provoke this more consistently, would there be a 
benefit in having test_sort run this test twice? (Once with length 50, 
once with length 3)

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan               |     Brisbane, Australia
Email: ncoghlan at email.com  | Mobile: +61 409 573 268

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-July/046531.html below:

[Python-Dev] RE: test_sort.py failure