On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:56, Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:06:07 +1000 > Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > results for 12de1ad1cee8 on branch "default" > > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > > > test_capi leaked [2008, 2008, 2008] references, sum=6024 > > > > Yikes, you weren't kidding about that new subinterpreter code > > execution test upsetting the refleak detection... > > Well, these are real leaks, but I expect them to be quite difficult to > track (I've found a couple of them), because they can be scattered > around in C module initialization routines and the like. I suggest we > skip this test on refleak runs. > Do we have any general strategy to help make it more fine-grained to detect where the leak might be coming from? We could then maybe try to get some people pound on this at the PyCon sprints. Otherwise I'm reluctant to skip it since they are legitimate leaks that should be get fixed.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
