Message307477
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
Demur Rumed, Mark.Shannon, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, mark.dickinson, nascheme, ncoghlan, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, trent |
| Date |
2017年12月03日.00:39:57 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1512261597.91.0.213398074469.issue17611@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I like this change, and think we should go ahead with it, but just wanted to note that I suspect it may make the "Badly timed signals may lead to __exit__ being skipped even after __enter__ succeeded" problem slightly easier to hit: https://bugs.python.org/issue29988
That's not a new problem though, and this change should make it easier to apply the conventional solutions (i.e. only checking for signals when execution jumps backwards within a function, as well as in function pre-or-post-ambles) |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年12月03日 00:39:58 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, nascheme, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, pitrou, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, trent, Mark.Shannon, serhiy.storchaka, Demur Rumed |
| 2017年12月03日 00:39:57 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1512261597.91.0.213398074469.issue17611@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017年12月03日 00:39:57 | ncoghlan | link | issue17611 messages |
| 2017年12月03日 00:39:57 | ncoghlan | create |
|