8000 gh-74929: Fix an extra DECREF for PEP 667 implementation by gaogaotiantian · Pull Request #118583 · python/cpython · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

gh-74929: Fix an extra DECREF for PEP 667 implementation #118583

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 5, 2024
Merged

gh-74929: Fix an extra DECREF for PEP 667 implementation #118583

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
2bb4e2e
Fix an extra DECREF for pep 667 implementation
gaogaotiantian May 5, 2024
0bbfd4f
Delete comment
gaogaotiantian May 5, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Next Next commit
Fix an extra DECREF for pep 667 implementation
  • Loading branch information
@gaogaotiantian
gaogaotiantian committed May 5, 2024
commit 2bb4e2e18121d10f313a83c54658adb6ae82c9ec
16 changes: 16 additions & 0 deletions Lib/test/test_frame.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -364,6 +364,22 @@ def f():
c = 0
f()

def test_local_objects(self):
o = object()
k = '.'.join(['a', 'b', 'c'])
f_locals = sys._getframe().f_locals
f_locals['o'] = f_locals['k']
self.assertEqual(o, 'a.b.c')

def test_update_with_self(self):
# Make sure reference is not leaking here
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The problem was not a leak though -- it was a free-after-use (the opposite of a leak, really :-).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right. I was imaging a pool of reference and a hole that's leaking the reference without people knowing it so the pool is drained, but yeah leak is not a good word choice here. I just deleted it, the test itself makes sense without any comments.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ooh, that's actually a nice image. :-) I will merge now.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the quick review!

def f():
f_locals = sys._getframe().f_locals
f_locals.update(f_locals)
f_locals.update(f_locals)
f_locals.update(f_locals)
f()

def test_repr(self):
x = 1
# Introduce a reference cycle
Expand Down
1 change: 0 additions & 1 deletion Objects/frameobject.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -171,7 +171,6 @@ framelocalsproxy_setitem(PyObject *self, PyObject *key, PyObject *value)
} else if (value != oldvalue) {
Py_XSETREF(fast[i], Py_NewRef(value));
}
Py_XDECREF(value);
return 0;
}
}
Expand Down
Loading
0