Message264251
| Author | vstinner |
|---|---|
| Recipients | alecsandru.patrascu, catalin.manciu, jtaylor, pitrou, python-dev, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date | 2016-04-26.11:35:58 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1461670559.22.0.940275280705.issue26249@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> 68b2a43d8653 introduced memory leak. I was very surprised to see a regression in test_format since I didn't change any change related to bytes, bytearray or str formatting in this issue. In fact, it's much better than that! With PyMem_Malloc() using pymalloc, we benefit for free of the cheap "_Py_AllocatedBlocks" memory leak detector. I introduced the memory leak in the issue #25349 when I optimimzed bytes%args and bytearray%args using the new _PyBytesWriter API. This memory leak gave me an idea, I opened the issue #26850: "PyMem_RawMalloc(): update also sys.getallocatedblocks() in debug mode". |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-04-26 11:35:59 | vstinner | set | recipients: + vstinner, rhettinger, pitrou, python-dev, jtaylor, serhiy.storchaka, alecsandru.patrascu, catalin.manciu |
| 2016-04-26 11:35:59 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1461670559.22.0.940275280705.issue26249@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016-04-26 11:35:59 | vstinner | link | issue26249 messages |
| 2016-04-26 11:35:58 | vstinner | create | |