Message168628
| Author |
ag6502 |
| Recipients |
Mark.Shannon, ag6502, amaury.forgeotdarc, benjamin.peterson, francismb, ggenellina, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2012年08月20日.07:00:15 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CALy7ODsXgwPHMs1uy415Kn3rMa-xZsXc0YLkJti_7SX0WxtPsQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1345415249.27.0.860593206687.issue5765@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Antoine Pitrou <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> Indeed I don't like the introduction of COMPILER_STACK_FRAME_SCALE.
> Re-using the existing infrastructure would be much easier to maintain.
> The default recursion limit is 1000, which should cover any non-pathological code, IMHO.
I submitted a new version with the scale lowered to 3.
Using a lower value (e.g. 1) however makes "test_extended_args" fail
(the test tries to compile an expression with 2500+ terms).
If it's ok to make that test to throw instead then the whole scaling
could be removed. |
|