Message353524
| Author | nascheme |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Mark.Shannon, christian.heimes, jdemeyer, lukasz.langa, methane, miss-islington, nascheme, pablogsal, petr.viktorin, pitrou, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date | 2019-09-30.02:08:05 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1569809285.16.0.229518544423.issue38006@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> We can have finalizer code running during delete_garbage(). That > code should not have access to non-valid objects. Weakrefs seem be > a way to violate that. handle_weakrefs() take care of some of them > but it seems there are other issues. I see that handle_weakrefs() calls _PyWeakref_ClearRef() and that will clear the weakref even if it doesn't have callback. So, I think that takes care for the hole I was worried about. I.e. a __del__ method could have a weakref to an non-valid object. However, because handle_weakrefs() will find that weakref, it will have been cleared when the __del__ method executes. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2019-09-30 02:08:05 | nascheme | set | recipients: + nascheme, tim.peters, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, petr.viktorin, methane, lukasz.langa, Mark.Shannon, jdemeyer, pablogsal, miss-islington |
| 2019-09-30 02:08:05 | nascheme | set | messageid: <1569809285.16.0.229518544423.issue38006@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2019-09-30 02:08:05 | nascheme | link | issue38006 messages |
| 2019-09-30 02:08:05 | nascheme | create | |