On 28 February 2012 21:38, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 22:19:
>> On 28 February 2012 21:08, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 21:20:
On 28 February 2012 19:58, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
>> Basically, the cleanup co
mark florisson, 28.02.2012 22:19:
> On 28 February 2012 21:08, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 21:20:
>>> On 28 February 2012 19:58, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
> Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
> corre
On 28 February 2012 21:22, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 22:09:
>> On 28 February 2012 21:08, mark florisson wrote:
>>> On 28 February 2012 20:19, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Stefan Behnel, 28.02.2012 20:58:
> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
>> Basically, the cleanup co
mark florisson, 28.02.2012 22:09:
> On 28 February 2012 21:08, mark florisson wrote:
>> On 28 February 2012 20:19, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> Stefan Behnel, 28.02.2012 20:58:
mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
> Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
> corre
On 28 February 2012 21:08, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 21:20:
>> On 28 February 2012 19:58, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
corresponding acquire is in EnsureGILNode, wh
On 28 February 2012 21:08, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 21:20:
>> On 28 February 2012 19:58, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
corresponding acquire is in EnsureGILNode, wh
On 28 February 2012 21:08, mark florisson wrote:
> On 28 February 2012 20:19, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Stefan Behnel, 28.02.2012 20:58:
>>> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
corresponding acquire is in EnsureGILNode, w
mark florisson, 28.02.2012 21:20:
> On 28 February 2012 19:58, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
>>> Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
>>> corresponding acquire is in EnsureGILNode, which wraps the function
>>> body in case of a nogil func
On 28 February 2012 20:19, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Stefan Behnel, 28.02.2012 20:58:
>> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
>>> Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
>>> corresponding acquire is in EnsureGILNode, which wraps the function
>>> body in case of a nogil func
On 28 February 2012 19:58, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
>> Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
>> corresponding acquire is in EnsureGILNode, which wraps the function
>> body in case of a nogil function with a 'with gil' block. Any chang
Stefan Behnel, 28.02.2012 20:58:
> mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
>> Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
>> corresponding acquire is in EnsureGILNode, which wraps the function
>> body in case of a nogil function with a 'with gil' block. Any changes
>> to the con
mark florisson, 28.02.2012 16:35:
> Basically, the cleanup code only needs a matching release because the
> corresponding acquire is in EnsureGILNode, which wraps the function
> body in case of a nogil function with a 'with gil' block. Any changes
> to the conditions in FuncDefNode will have to be
12 matches
Mail list logo