Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused with the archive.org Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount of related projects for saving online and digital history.
bpo-1635741: Enhance _datetime error handling #23139
Conversation
|
@vstinner please review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please mention the modified module name in the PR title.
I suggest to canghe the PR title to "Enhance _datetime error handling" or "Refactor _datetime error handling", since this change is not directly related to multi-phase init. I'm not sure that we can soon convert this module to the multi-phase init because of the PyCapsule C API.
|
You wrote the wrong bpo number in the PR title. |
|
@koubaa Can you provide a TL;DR of why this change is useful or necessary? |
https://bugs.python.org/issue1635741 describes the overall goal: better embed Python in application. One side of the issue is to ensure that an extension module releases all its resources at Python exit. |
asvetlov
changed the title
koubaa
changed the title
koubaa
force-pushed
the
bpo-1635741-datetime
branch
from
8910cc2 to
04889ea
Compare
koubaa
force-pushed
the
bpo-1635741-datetime
branch
from
04889ea to
ae49eaf
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Be careful with preprocessor traps :-( https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Macro-Pitfalls.html
Thanks again for sharing this, I easily forget them. |
Oh, me tee! I got exactly the same issue than you a few days ago :-D |
|
Thanks, I merged your PR. I checked manually for refleak using the following test run with "./python -m test (...) -R 3:3": I didn't notice any refleak. |
|
Hum, I'm not sure that my manual test is relevant, since _datetime doesn't use multiphase init yet. But it leaks, I don't expect issues with Refleaks buildbots. |
This helps prepare for multiphase init (PEP 489)
https://bugs.python.org/issue1635741