➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author nascheme
Recipients Mark.Shannon, christian.heimes, jdemeyer, lukasz.langa, methane, miss-islington, nascheme, pablogsal, petr.viktorin, pitrou, tim.peters, vstinner
Date 2019-09-30.18:26:46
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1569868006.36.0.940144764027.issue38006@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content 
> Is introducing tp_clear on functions a thing that has ABI consequences? In other words, if we take our time on this, would it land in 3.8.1 or 3.9.0?

I think it should not have ABI consequences.  However, I see the addition of tp_clear as a new feature.  Leaking memory due to reference cycles is bad behavior but not a bug to be fixed in a maintenance release.  Unless we require full GC protocol on every container object, we can't promise not to leak.

Inaka's change to add func tp_clear has been in all the 3.8.0 pre-releases (I think).  So, it should be pretty well exercised by now (at least, as well as the per-releases are tested).
History
Date User Action Args
2019-09-30 18:26:46naschemesetrecipients: + nascheme, tim.peters, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, petr.viktorin, methane, lukasz.langa, Mark.Shannon, jdemeyer, pablogsal, miss-islington
2019-09-30 18:26:46naschemesetmessageid: <1569868006.36.0.940144764027.issue38006@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-09-30 18:26:46naschemelinkissue38006 messages
2019-09-30 18:26:46naschemecreate