[Python-Dev] refleak hunting fun!

[Walter Dörwald]

Michael Hudson wrote:

 > Walter Dörwald <walter at livinglogic.de> writes:
 >
 >> Michael Hudson wrote:
 >>
 >>> [...]
 >>>
 >>>> but there seem to be real leaks here.
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> In a perverse kind of way, phew :-) Wouldn't want to have gone to all
 >>> this effort to uncover *nothing* but a bunch of false alarms...
 >>
 >>
 >> I've fixed two of the leaks.
 >
 >
 > Cool.  Do you think that's it for real leaks in test_codeccallbacks?

I'll try to go through the list and see if I can find any other
leaks. test_callbacks() from the test is the next candidate, but
it *does* register callbacks, so the registry comes into play.

 >> > [...]
 >>
 >>> In general (not sure about these tests) you want to run each test a
 >>> few time to let things settle down before measuring the effect on
 >>> gettotalrefcount().
 >>
 >>
 >> I think I'll try that, but this will take ages to run.
 >
 >
 > No kidding.


A job for the weekend. This leads to an idea: Maybe we should
set up a cronjob that runs the tests and publishes the results
somewhere on the web?

 >> Meanwhile here is the result of my patch for the complete test
 >> suite:
 >>
 >> http://styx.livinglogic.de/~walter/reflog3.txt
 >>
 >> (This includes only unittest based tests)
 >
 >
 > Cool.  Is this from CVS head?

Yes.

 > I thought a bunch of leaks in arrays
 > had already been fixed.

I'll do an update before I start the job for the weekend
just to be sure.

 >> It would simplify hunting leaks if we separated tests that are
 >> known to change the total refcount from the rest by moving
 >> them to separate test methods or even test cases.
 >
 >
 > Sure would!
 >
 > Not sure that's a trivial proposition, though.

It isn't, we should finish the unittest migration first.

Bye,
    Walter Dörwald