Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/103582.html below:
[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84685 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/library/dis.rst Doc/reference/simple_stmts.rst Doc/whatsnew/3.2.rst Include/opcode.h Lib/opcode.py Lib/test/test_exceptions.py Lib/test/test_scope.py Lib/test/test_syntax.py Misc/NEWS Python
[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84685 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/library/dis.rst Doc/reference/simple_stmts.rst Doc/whatsnew/3.2.rst Include/opcode.h Lib/opcode.py Lib/test/test_exceptions.py Lib/test/test_scope.py Lib/test/test_syntax.py Misc/NEWS Python [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84685 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/library/dis.rst Doc/reference/simple_stmts.rst Doc/whatsnew/3.2.rst Include/opcode.h Lib/opcode.py Lib/test/test_exceptions.py Lib/test/test_scope.py Lib/test/test_syntax.py Misc/NEWS PythonBenjamin Peterson benjamin at python.org
Sat Sep 11 02:33:10 CEST 2010
2010/9/10 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:39 AM, amaury.forgeotdarc
> <python-checkins at python.org> wrote:
>> There is no need to bump the PYC magic number: the new opcode is used
>> for code that did not compile before.
>
> If the magic number doesn't change for 3.2, how will 3.1 know it can't
> run pyc and pyo files containing these opcodes?
The magic number is already bumped since 3.1. However, it's true that
the number should be bumped anyway for good measure.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
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