Message297185
| Author |
erik.bray |
| Recipients |
Mark.Shannon, deleted0524, erik.bray, jdemeyer, ncoghlan, njs, yselivanov |
| Date |
2017年06月28日.13:55:20 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1498658120.14.0.735648851701.issue29988@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
>> Or we could steal a bit in the opcode encoding or something.
> That seems like a very reasonable and easy-to-implement solution. It > would generalize this check: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/e82cf8675bacd7a03de508ed11865fc2701dcef5/Python/ceval.c#L1067-L1071
Interesting; I didn't notice that bit before. It seems like that does at least try to guarantee that a signal can't interrupt between:
lock.acquire()
try:
...
which previously I assumed we couldn't make any guarantees about. But CPython at least does, or tries to. It would be good to generalize that. |
|