On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 09:27 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/17/2011 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Dag Sverre Selj
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:55 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 20 August 2011 00:34, mark florisson wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I think I found a rather serious bug: if an error label is used in a
>> nogil function, it tries to build a traceback. So if the GIL is
>> released you will immediately segfault,
On 20 August 2011 06:55, mark florisson wrote:
>
> What about the syntax issue though? Should we fix that?
>
Long ago I also complained about that. Greg commented that we should
really accept "except" and "gil/nogil" in any position, so that
cdef int foo() except 0 with gil
cdef int foo() with g
On 20 August 2011 00:34, mark florisson wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I think I found a rather serious bug: if an error label is used in a
> nogil function, it tries to build a traceback. So if the GIL is
> released you will immediately segfault, and otherwise it will work
> fine! Here is a snippet:
>
> cdef
