On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Le dimanche 26 décembre 2010 à 14:10 +, exar...@twistedmatrix.com a
> écrit :
>> On 25 Dec, 10:31 pm, mer...@netwok.org wrote:
>> >>faulthandler is a module: enable the handler is simple as "import
>> >>faulthandler".
>> >
>> >That sound
Le dimanche 26 décembre 2010 à 14:10 +, exar...@twistedmatrix.com a
écrit :
> On 25 Dec, 10:31 pm, mer...@netwok.org wrote:
> >>faulthandler is a module: enable the handler is simple as "import
> >>faulthandler".
> >
> >That sounds like a source of unwanted behavior (aka problems) if the
> >han
On 25 Dec, 10:31 pm, mer...@netwok.org wrote:
faulthandler is a module: enable the handler is simple as "import
faulthandler".
That sounds like a source of unwanted behavior (aka problems) if the
handler is enabled by 1Cpydoc faulthandler 1D or by a pkgutil walk. You
may want to consider usin
> faulthandler is a module: enable the handler is simple as "import
> faulthandler".
That sounds like a source of unwanted behavior (aka problems) if the
handler is enabled by “pydoc faulthandler” or by a pkgutil walk. You
may want to consider using a function to enable the functionality (and
add
Le vendredi 24 décembre 2010 à 12:59 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
> I hope you will include it in 3.3 though; it is great functionality.
I don't know, Python 3.3 is not planned yet. Anyway, faulthandler is
already available and you can use it on Python 2.5 through 3.2.
> I would really like to
Michael Foord writes:
> It seemed from the discussion that the biggest barrier to enabling it by
> default was possible difficulties when embedding Python (multiple
> interpreters, potential conflicts with application signal handling). A
> public C-API to disable the functionality per inter
On 24/12/2010 02:21, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le jeudi 23 décembre 2010 à 21:59 +0100, Georg Brandl a écrit :
this thread showed that it is not at all obvious how the feature should look
like
Ok, I understand. I closed #8863 (rejected) and I created a third party
module on the Python cheese shop:
Am 24.12.2010 03:21, schrieb Victor Stinner:
> Le jeudi 23 décembre 2010 à 21:59 +0100, Georg Brandl a écrit :
>> this thread showed that it is not at all obvious how the feature should look
>> like
>
> Ok, I understand. I closed #8863 (rejected) and I created a third party
> module on the Python
Le jeudi 23 décembre 2010 à 22:58 +, Martin (gzlist) a écrit :
> On 23/12/2010, Victor Stinner wrote:
> >
> > I tested my patch on Windows (XP), Ubuntu (10.4) and FreeBSD (8) and it
> > works correctly: all tests pass and the system fault handler (Windows
> > popup, Apport and core dump) is al
Le jeudi 23 décembre 2010 à 21:59 +0100, Georg Brandl a écrit :
> this thread showed that it is not at all obvious how the feature should look
> like
Ok, I understand. I closed #8863 (rejected) and I created a third party
module on the Python cheese shop:
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/faulthandler/
On 23/12/2010, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> I tested my patch on Windows (XP), Ubuntu (10.4) and FreeBSD (8) and it
> works correctly: all tests pass and the system fault handler (Windows
> popup, Apport and core dump) is also called.
Doesn't build for me without #ifdef HAVE_UNISTD_H in Python/fault
Am 23.12.2010 19:23, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>> The fault handler is disabled by default and it is clearly separated
>> (eg. it doesn't touch the API of a module). Can't you make an exception
>> for this new feature?
>
> Ultimately, it's for the release manager to decide, so I don't need to
> m
> The fault handler is disabled by default and it is clearly separated
> (eg. it doesn't touch the API of a module). Can't you make an exception
> for this new feature?
Ultimately, it's for the release manager to decide, so I don't need to
make an exception. However, I think that special cases are
Le jeudi 23 décembre 2010 à 03:37 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> > So, do you agree with the fault handler? Does someone want to give a
> > last review because I commit it?
>
> It's a new feature, so regardless of whether it's correct or not
> (which I haven't reviewed yet), I don't think it
> So, do you agree with the fault handler? Does someone want to give a
> last review because I commit it?
It's a new feature, so regardless of whether it's correct or not
(which I haven't reviewed yet), I don't think it should go in before
3.2 is released.
Regards,
Martin
15 matches
Mail list logo
