Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(4820)

#11816: Add functions to return disassembly as string

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
2 years, 1 month ago by eltoder
Modified:
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Reviewers:
merwok, ncoghlan, takowl
CC:
loewis, rhettinger, jcea, Nick Coghlan, sasha, AntoinePitrou, haypo, ron_adam, alex, rfk, meadori, Charles-François Natali, devnull_psf.upfronthosting.co.za, eric.snow, Thomas Kluyver, yselivanov
Visibility:
Public.

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 #

Patch Set 3 #

Patch Set 4 #

Patch Set 5 #

Total comments: 8

Patch Set 6 #

Total comments: 8

Patch Set 7 #

Patch Set 8 #

Patch Set 9 #

Patch Set 10 #

Patch Set 11 #

Patch Set 12 #

Total comments: 4

Patch Set 13 #

Patch Set 14 #

Patch Set 15 #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats Patch
Lib/test/test_peepholer.py View 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 9 chunks +139 lines, -156 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 5
ezio.melotti
http://bugs.python.org/review/11816/diff/3293/10245 File Doc/library/dis.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/11816/diff/3293/10245#newcode184 Doc/library/dis.rst:184: as :class:`OpInfo` instances: If this is a named tuple ...
1 year, 8 months ago #1
rfk
http://bugs.python.org/review/11816/diff/3293/10247 File Lib/test/bytecode_helper.py (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/11816/diff/3293/10247#newcode35 Lib/test/bytecode_helper.py:35: """Returns opinfo if op is found, otherwise throws AssertionError""" ...
1 year, 8 months ago #2
eric.araujo
Some comments. Sorry if the tone is sometimes too explain-y, I thought the patch was ...
1 year, 7 months ago #3
Nick Coghlan
The "test.bytecode_helper" file is missing from the current patch, but we should separate out the ...
3 months, 1 week ago #4
Thomas Kluyver
3 months, 1 week ago #5
On 2013/02/13 08:03:50, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> http://bugs.python.org/review/11816/diff/7359/Lib/dis.py#newcode384
> Lib/dis.py:384: self.line_offset = 0
> This is a good start, but the details reported in the self.info string should
> also be available as attributes.

They're already attributes on the code object, e.g. as
bytecode.codeobj.co_names. Should we re-expose some or all of them on the
Bytecode object as well? My inclination is that exposing them all again would
make it more confusing, as it wouldn't immediately be obvious that lots of the
available information was simply duplicate references.
Sign in to reply to this message.

RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld cbc36f91f3f7