On 6/27/06, Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org> wrote: > > > On 6/27/06, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > > > > If you look at that crasher, you will notice that recursion depth is set > > to 1 << 30 before any code is run. If you remove that setting high setting > > and go with the default then the test doesn't crash and raises the > > appropriate RuntimeError. > > > > Setting the recursion depth to such a high number will crash the > > interpreter even when the proper recursion checks are in place. This > > doesn't seem like a legit crasher to me if it requires an insane recursion > > depth that would crash almost any C program that had recursion in it. > > > > Anyone have any objections if I call foul on the test and remove it > > without any changes to Python? > > > > Well, it's a valid crasher. It crashes Python to recurse too much. The > recursion limit was added to CPython to prevent the crash from happening too > easily, but that limit is just an implementation detail (and furthermore, > the actual limit is just guessed.) It's not like a real solution is > impossible, it's just very complex. Much like, say, restricted execution :-) > OK, let me rephrase: I don't feel like fixing this if the proper thing happens when the default recursion depth is in place. There are a ton of other recursion issues if you set the recursion depth to 1,073,741,824. One could try to make the interpreter non-recursive or stackless, but I leave that to people who are smarter than me. =) And so, with that view, I don't see the test as something that needs special attention that is brought by being in crashers since I suspect that one will sit there forever. =) -Brett Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060627/f866973a/attachment.html
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