Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > All such cases are bugs (memory manager works with tp_basicsize and > tp_itemsize, not with __sizeof__ result) and tests do not test it. In > paranoidal mode we should tests both __sizeof__ and object.__sizeof__. For > all > classes, even for those that do not use the extra memory. I think it is > really > tedious.
It's clearly a tradeoff. The question is whether a more paranoid formulation of the test might detect any real bugs. issue15456 efficiently demonstrates that the current style can detect bugs which testing with object.__sizeof__ can't. This is not theoretical: it's an *actual* bug that did get detected with the current style of testing, but would not have been detected with object.__sizeof__. This, IMO, makes the more tedious formulation worthwhile. Of course, developers need to be educated how to deal with any breakage of these tests: it may be that they really just added or removed fields to the structure, in which case they just need to update the struct specs. In many cases, I claim, addition of new fields (in particular of struct type "P") corresponds to the allocation of additional memory blocks. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15402> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
