[Python-bugs-list] [ python-Bugs-575715 ] Parts of 2.2.1 core use old gc API

[noreply@sourceforge.net]

Bugs item #575715, was opened at 2002-06-30 14:18
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=575715&group_id=5470

Category: Python Interpreter Core
Group: Python 2.2
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Tim Peters (tim_one)
>Assigned to: Neil Schemenauer (nascheme)
Summary: Parts of 2.2.1 core use old gc API

Initial Comment:
At least generators, iterators, and bound method 
objects in 2.2.1 are using the 2.1 gc API internally 
(PyObject_GC_Init & friends), which collapses to a 
bunch of nops.  That's not intentional, right?  I'm 
tempted to call it a critical bug, except nobody has 
noticed <wink>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2002-08-05 11:47

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6380

I don't think we need to enable GC for those types in 2.2
unless we find specific cases where it's needed in an app.

(Tim said bound method objects, sending me off on a wild
goose chase for a bit, until I realized he meant "whatever's
in methodobject.c". This is a misnomer -- it contains the
code for C functions. Bound methods are in classobject.c,
under the name "instance method" (in 2.3, "instancemethod").
Also a misnomer. :-( )

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Neil Schemenauer (nascheme)
Date: 2002-08-05 10:57

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=35752

I've removed the noops.  Should I re-enable GC for these
types? Assigning
to Guido for pronouncement or delegation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Neil Schemenauer (nascheme)
Date: 2002-07-01 12:21

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=35752

It wasn't intentional but it's been known for a while.  No
one complained
and so we didn't fix it in a bugfix release.  I think it
would be considered a
new feature.  Maybe we should leave it up to the 2.2 release
manager to
decide.

This is a good example of why it would be useful to have an
option to
disable compatibilty code.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=575715&group_id=5470