Message301235
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
Mark.Shannon, deleted0524, erik.bray, gregory.p.smith, jdemeyer, ncoghlan, njs, xgdomingo, yselivanov |
| Date |
2017年09月04日.18:09:58 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1504548598.39.0.657458334625.issue29988@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Greg Smith & I are looking at this at the core dev sprint, and we think some variant of the "atomic until" idea should work, but there's a prerequisite change to the way "async with" works: the "GET_AWAITABLE" opcodes need to be avoided in this case, as they call __await__, and hence may run arbitrary Python code.
We can't see any immediate barriers to moving those calls up into BEFORE_ASYNC_WITH, such that what ends up on the eval loop's stack is the already resolved iterable for use by YIELD FROM, rather than combining GET_AWAITABLE+YIELD_FROM the way a normal await expression does.
That would then give the preamble:
BEFORE_ASYNC_WITH (resolves __aenter__ and __aexit__ to iterables)
LOAD_CONST 0
YIELD_FROM (need to skip signal processing here)
SETUP_ASYNC_WITH
And the postamble:
POP_BLOCK (need to skip signal processing until YIELD_FROM)
LOAD_CONST 0
WITH_CLEANUP_START
LOAD_CONST 0
YIELD_FROM
WITH_CLEANUP_FINISH
We also agree that adding some kind of test injection hook (potentially limited to pydebug builds, depending on exactly how it works) is likely to be a necessary to be able to test this. |
|