RetroSearch Browse

Thu Mar 18 13:30:34 EST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043245.html

Aahz wrote:

>On Thu, Mar 18, 2004, Kevin Jacobs wrote:
>
>>Please read over my original mail again, since the magnitude of
>>weirdness may not have been obvious the first time through.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmmmm...  First of all, not all.  When I tried your test with N=1, I did
>still get one leaked ref.  I tried running with an extra gc.collect() at
>the end of each run, and that didn't help.  I've verified that
>gc.collect() immediately after the running test_func() does reap a bunch
>of stuff.  And I've verified that the sum of len(gc.getobjects()) for
>each run equals that of running it at the start and end of the whole
>program.
>
>I'll let someone else who can look at the C code take over....
>  
>

Thanks for double-checking that I'm not just hallucinating all of this.  
I too will
start looking into the C code, though I tend to avoid the GC and weakref
subsystems at all costs.  Others who know the GC process better (hint: Tim)
are warmly invited to accompany me.

Thanks,
-Kevin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043245.html below:

[Python-Dev] Python GC/type()/weakref mystery