RetroSearch Browse

Sat Sep 11 02:43:14 CEST 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/103583.html

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I saw your subsequent checkin. I've updated the comment just
above MAGIC and TAG to make it clearer when they should be changed.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/103583.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