On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > 2010/9/10 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com>: >> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:39 AM, amaury.forgeotdarc >> <python-check...@python.org> wrote: >>> There is no need to bump the PYC magic number: the new opcode is used >>> for code that did not compile before. >> >> If the magic number doesn't change for 3.2, how will 3.1 know it can't >> run pyc and pyo files containing these opcodes? > > The magic number is already bumped since 3.1. However, it's true that > the number should be bumped anyway for good measure.
Yeah, I saw your subsequent checkin. I've updated the comment just above MAGIC and TAG to make it clearer when they should be changed. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
