I tried running the following command in the interpreter, and without fail it will completely crash my entire computer.

Python 3.8.7 (default, Jan 20 2021, 00:00:00) 
[GCC 10.2.1 20201125 (Red Hat 10.2.1-9)] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> sum([i for i in range(10**8 + 10**9)])

My kernel is 5.10.12-100

I am running on Fedora 32 with Cinnamon Desktop if it helps. Let me know if you need any other information. 

I eagerly await resolution of this bug, as I want to know the result of the computation. Unless, of course it is harebrained, then we should ignore because Guido already discussed such computations.

George

You are using a list comprehension that consumes a LOT of memory very fast. The line requires more physical RAM than available on a typical user system. This causes your computer to become unresponsive to input.

You can rewrite tie list comprehension as generator expression:

    sum(i for i in range(10**8 + 10**9))

It will consume far less memory, but it's slow and inefficient. You could use the triangular number algorithm instead:

    n = 10**8 + 10**9
    n * (n-1) // 2

Thanks Christian for the solutions. I am guessing that since it is my entire machine that crashes, and python is not simply killed for requesting so much memory, that this is an operating system problem. Should I submit this as a bug to the kernel project then?

George

The list you're attempting to create needs around 41GB of RAM (28 bytes for the actual object, rounded up to 32 bytes per object for alignment reasons, plus 8 bytes for each pointer in the list). Assuming you don't have that much memory on your system, it'll likely start swapping at that point.

> Should I submit this as a bug to the kernel project then?

That's up to you. The effect is well known and well documented - see for example https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577528 .

You may want to consider using `ulimit` to limit the amount of RAM that the Python process can use.

In any case, closing here, since this isn't a Python bug.

> 28 bytes for the actual object

Gah. I should proof-read before hitting "Submit Changes". That should say "28 bytes for each int object".