Message242849
| Author | ncoghlan |
|---|---|
| Recipients | NeilGirdhar, Rosuav, Yury.Selivanov, belopolsky, berker.peksag, ethan.furman, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, python-dev, r.david.murray, rhettinger, schlamar, scoder, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date | 2015-05-10.03:40:46 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1431229246.92.0.00770129146818.issue22906@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Since it took me a moment to figure out why the extra incref was needed: * both PyException_SetCause and PyException_SetContext steal a reference to their second argument * hence we need the second incref, rather than relying solely on the reference received from PyErr_NormalizeException This does suggest the new incref is conceptually in the wrong spot - it should be before the call to PyException_SetCause, such that this block of code *always* possesses a valid reference while accessing "val". At the moment, we technically still don't have an active reference when passing "val" to PyException_SetContext. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-05-10 03:40:47 | ncoghlan | set | recipients: + ncoghlan, gvanrossum, rhettinger, belopolsky, scoder, vstinner, r.david.murray, ethan.furman, Yury.Selivanov, python-dev, schlamar, Rosuav, berker.peksag, serhiy.storchaka, yselivanov, NeilGirdhar |
| 2015-05-10 03:40:46 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1431229246.92.0.00770129146818.issue22906@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-05-10 03:40:46 | ncoghlan | link | issue22906 messages |
| 2015-05-10 03:40:46 | ncoghlan | create | |