Author ebarry
Recipients Rosuav, ebarry, ethan.furman, georg.brandl, ncoghlan, xiang.zhang
Date 2016-07-24.13:50:28
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1469368229.34.0.562545889917.issue26823@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Thank you Nick for the comments! Updated patch attached.

The new patch uses inspect.stack() to calculate the total stack size, but I'm unable to get the exact number needed, and I found that I'm either 19 or 20 above (depending on whether I run it with -m or manually). The test now "just works" with it, but I'm quite sure it's going to break at some point. Any idea?

The other alternative would be to use traceback.walk_tb(exc.__traceback__), but the Python implementation uses that, so it'd be comparing itself; and that's about as useful as not caring about the size at all. (On the other hand, the C and Python implementations get the exact same number, so it can confirm it's fine)
History
Date User Action Args
2016-07-24 13:50:29ebarrysetrecipients: + ebarry, georg.brandl, ncoghlan, ethan.furman, Rosuav, xiang.zhang
2016-07-24 13:50:29ebarrysetmessageid: <1469368229.34.0.562545889917.issue26823@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-07-24 13:50:29ebarrylinkissue26823 messages
2016-07-24 13:50:29ebarrycreate