On 4/1/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, if a generator has already finished, it no longer holds a suspended frame alive, and there is no cycle (at least not through the generator.) That's why test_generators no longer leaks; explicitly closing the generator breaks the cycle. So the only thing fixing GC would add is cleaning up cycles where a created but not started generator is the only thing keeping the cycle alive.
Greg Ewing wrote:
> I find it rather worrying that there could be a
> few rare cases in which my generators cause
> memory leaks, through no fault of my own and
> without my being able to do anything about it.
The GC changes PJE is looking at are to make sure you *can* do something about
it. If the generator hasn't been started, or has already finished, then the GC
won't consider it as needing finalisation.
Actually, if a generator has already finished, it no longer holds a suspended frame alive, and there is no cycle (at least not through the generator.) That's why test_generators no longer leaks; explicitly closing the generator breaks the cycle. So the only thing fixing GC would add is cleaning up cycles where a created but not started generator is the only thing keeping the cycle alive.
--
Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
