Message164840
| Author |
ag6502 |
| Recipients |
ag6502, amaury.forgeotdarc, benjamin.peterson, ggenellina, serhiy.storchaka, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2012年07月07日.13:31:14 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1341667874.77.0.0246247163794.issue5765@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
This is a fix for this issue.
The solution was to add two fields (recursion_depth and
recursion_limit) to the symbol table object and just increment and
check the depth in symtable_visit_expr raising a RuntimeError in case
the limit is exceeded.
The test case added also covers other similar cases (a.b.b.b.b.b...
and a[0][0][0][0]....)
There is no depth check in when visiting statement because I cannot
think to a way to nesting statements too much without getting other
errors before. If there is a way to do it, it would be trivial to also
cover that part.
The patch uses the current depth and current recursion limit but
multiplies them for a factor because I suppose that the amount of C
stack used by the compiler per recursion is smaller than the amount
used by the interpreter; the constant in the patch is 4. Using a
constant of 1 (i.e. just using the normal recursion limit) doesn't
allow a previously existing test about big expressions to pass. |
|