Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> added the comment:
The other option is to simply not worry about it and acknowledge you can
crash the compiler with a crazy-sized expression. Option 1 is too much work
and option 2 takes us from an AST to more of an s-expression format which
is a significant shift in design (now if people want to make that kind of
change that's fine, but it should be consistent across the board).
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 14:30 Serhiy Storchaka, <rep...@bugs.python.org>
wrote:
>
> Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka+cpyt...@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> On Linux the limit is much larger that 2**15. This depends on the stack
> size, it is smaller on Windows.
>
> The stack is overflowed by recursive call of ast2obj_expr in
> Python/Python-ast.c. The same problem exists in other recursive AST
> processing code: optimizing, unparsing. This is why 3.7 can crash in cases
> when 3.6 was not crashed.
>
> I don't see an easy way of fixing this. The common way is surrounding
> recursive calls with Py_EnterRecursiveCall()/Py_LeaveRecursiveCall(). But
> this make the limit too small (1000 by default). In other cases it is
> enough. The data structures with 1000 levels of nesting are rare. In any
> case the Python compiler has lower limit on nesting indented blocks. But in
> this case the linear sequence of binary operators is compiled to deeply
> nested structure.
>
> I see two hard ways of properly fixing this.
>
> 1. Rewrite all AST expression processing code with using an explicit stack
> instead of function stack. This will complicate a lot of C code too much.
> Python code should be rewritten too if you don't want to get a
> RecursionError in corner cases, but for common cases it can be left
> unmodified.
>
> 2. Change binary operations representation, so that a+b+c+d will be
> represented as ('+', (a, b, c, d)) instead of ('+', ('+', ('+', a, b), c),
> d). This is backward incompatible change and needs to rewrite any AST
> processing code (in C and Python). This solution can't be backported. But
> the resulting code will be simpler than when rewrite them for the first
> approach.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32758>
> _______________________________________
>
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32758>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
