Message69810
| Author |
brett.cannon |
| Recipients |
brett.cannon, esrever_otua, pitrou |
| Date |
2008年07月16日.18:25:46 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.014567369 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<bbaeab100807161125m6ecc6426u2cff891deb044962@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1216207231.1.0.609908466679.issue3373@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
>
> Why was 1000 chosen in the first place? If it's just an arbitrary value
> then we can bump it to 4000 so that people don't get bad surprises when
> upgrading their Python.
>
It was originally 10,000, but people wanted thread switches to occur more often.
>> This looks more
>> like the interpreter is adding 4x the number of items to the stack
>> during the construction of the nested object, which seems pretty
>> surprising/broken...
>
> Well PyObject_Call increases the recursion count, and entering __init__
> will increase it once more. That explains the 2x, not the 4x though.
As I said, without a comparison of traces this is continue to just be
speculation (and I don't have the time to do that). |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2008年07月16日 18:25:48 | brett.cannon | set | spambayes_score: 0.0145674 -> 0.014567369 recipients:
+ brett.cannon, esrever_otua, pitrou |
| 2008年07月16日 18:25:47 | brett.cannon | link | issue3373 messages |
| 2008年07月16日 18:25:46 | brett.cannon | create |
|