Created on 2008-08-14 19:03 by ajaksu2, last changed 2011-12-24 22:52 by terry.reedy. This issue is now closed.
|nester.py||ajaksu2, 2008-08-22 18:00||Creates a file with lots of nesting function calls from except blocks|
|msg71141 - (view)||Author: Daniel Diniz (ajaksu2)||Date: 2008-08-14 19:03|
The following code works on trunk and 2.5.1, but crashes with "Fatal Python error: Cannot recover from stack overflow," on py3k as of rev65676: ###### # Python 3.0b2+ (py3k:65676, Aug 14 2008, 14:37:38) # [GCC 4.1.3 20070929 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.2-16ubuntu2)] on linux2 import sys def overflower(): try: return overflower() except: return sys.exc_info() def f(): try: return f() except: return overflower() f() ###### Catching RuntimeError crashes, letting it be raised avoids the crash. Adding "finally: return overflower()" along with a non RuntimeError-catching except also gives a Fatal Python error. A smaller test case for hitting the overflow in py3k would be "def f(): [...] except: return f()", but that hangs in an (desirable?) infinite loop in 2.5 and trunk.  "Works" as in "doesn't crash", but both the code above and the infinite loop hit issue2548 when run on a debug build of trunk. Calling overflower() alone in trunk hits the "undetected error" discussed in that issue, but works fine in py3k.
|msg71148 - (view)||Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) *||Date: 2008-08-14 20:07|
I'm no expert in recursion checking inside the Python interpreter, but looking at the code for _Py_CheckRecursiveCall(), I don't think it is a bug but a feature. Here how I understand it. When the recursion level exceeds the normal recursion limit (let's call the latter N), a RuntimeError is raised and the normal recursion check is temporarily disabled (by setting tstate->overflowed) so that Python can run some recovery code (e.g. an except statement with a function call to log the problem), and another recursion check is put in place that is triggered at N+50. When the latter check triggers, the interpreter prints the aforementioned Py_FatalError and bails out. This is actually what happens in your example: when the normal recursion limit is hit and a RuntimeError is raised, you immediately catch the exception and run into a second infinite loop while the normal recursion check is temporarily disabled: the N+50 check then does its job. Here is a simpler way to showcase this behaviour, without any nested exceptions: def f(): try: return f() except: pass f() f() Can someone else comment on this?
|msg71154 - (view)||Author: Daniel Diniz (ajaksu2)||Date: 2008-08-14 21:17|
Antoine, Thanks for your analysis. I still believe this is a regression for the case described, but take my opinion with a grain of salt :) >> looking at the code for _Py_CheckRecursiveCall(), I don't think it >> is a bug but a feature. It does seem to be working as designed, if that is a desirable behavior then this issue should be closed. > This is actually what happens in your example: when the normal > recursion limit is hit and a RuntimeError is raised, you > immediately catch the exception and run into a second infinite > loop while the normal recursion check is temporarily disabled: > the N+50 check then does its job. Except that it wasn't an infinite loop in 2.5 and isn't in trunk: it terminates on overflower's except. That's why I think this is a regression. Besides being different behavior, it seems weird to bail out on a recursion issue instead of dealing with it. Your showcase is a better way of getting an infinite loop in trunk than the one I mentioned, but AFAIK we are more comfortable with infinite loops than with fatal errors.
|msg71155 - (view)||Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) *||Date: 2008-08-14 21:29|
> Except that it wasn't an infinite loop in 2.5 and isn't in trunk: it > terminates on overflower's except. That's because the stated behaviour is only implemented in 3.0 and not in 2.x. I'm not sure what motivated it, but you are the first one to complain about it. If you think it is a regression, I think you should open a thread on the python-dev mailing-list about it.
|msg71761 - (view)||Author: Daniel Diniz (ajaksu2)||Date: 2008-08-22 18:00|
Antoine, All the cases I could find would be more "test" than "use" cases. Given that most ways to abort I find in 3.0 are related to "undetected error"s in trunk, I'm almost convinced that 3.0 is right here :) My last worry is that it'd be kinda easy to get Fatal errors from sane-ish functions and deeply nested input: ============ class rec: def __str__(self): return str(self) def overflower(x): try: return overflower(x) except: print (x) list_rec =  for _ in range(12): list_rec = [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[list_rec]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] str_rec = rec() overflower(1) # OK overflower(list_rec) # Aborts overflower(str_rec) # Aborts ============ Thanks for the feedback! Attached is a file that shows how trunk is doing something weird when it works (besides the other reported issues that arise from that).
|msg95383 - (view)||Author: kai zhu (kaizhu)||Date: 2009-11-17 11:55|
just submitted a nearly identical bug (#7338) b4 checking for this one. so u think it works correctly up to the 2nd N+50 check. can someone give a reason y we should crash after that instead of throwing a fallback RuntimeError?
|msg150240 - (view)||Author: Terry J. Reedy (terry.reedy) *||Date: 2011-12-24 22:52|
|2011-12-24 22:52:20||terry.reedy||set||status: open -> closed|
versions: + Python 3.3, - Python 3.0
nosy: + terry.reedy
messages: + msg150240
messages: + msg95383
messages: + msg71761
|2008-08-14 21:29:12||pitrou||set||messages: + msg71155|
|2008-08-14 21:17:29||ajaksu2||set||messages: + msg71154|
messages: + msg71148
|2008-08-14 19:43:16||gvanrossum||set||nosy: + gvanrossum|