Author serhiy.storchaka
Recipients Demur Rumed, Mark.Shannon, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, mark.dickinson, nascheme, ncoghlan, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, trent
Date 2017-12-04.13:16:14
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <7488811.rCEn5LsdNE@saraksh>
In-reply-to <a0d6b8f8-505e-8900-a191-f9d11b19eaac@free.fr>
Content
> The problem is that makes the stack consumption of END_FINALLY variable.
> How about always consuming 6 items, even when most of them are unused
> padding?

Right. Though the value of the stack increment makes sense only for the case 
1, because in other cases the next executed instruction is not the one 
following END_FINALLY, but we need to reserve the stack for the case 3, and 
counting additional "virtual" items  in PUSH_NO_EXCEPT and END_FINALLY will 
help to calculate the maximal stack consumption, even when in runtime they 
push/pop only one item. This is yet one argument for special purposed opcode 
PUSH_NO_EXCEPT (maybe I'll rename it to START_FINALLY or BEGIN_FINALLY). Other 
reason -- this will help to determine bounds of finally blocks in the 
frame.f_lineno setter.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-12-04 13:16:15serhiy.storchakasetrecipients: + serhiy.storchaka, nascheme, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, pitrou, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, trent, Mark.Shannon, Demur Rumed
2017-12-04 13:16:14serhiy.storchakalinkissue17611 messages
2017-12-04 13:16:14serhiy.storchakacreate