On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:39:42 -0500 Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Well it's the old well-known issue with pseudo-"permanent" references > > not being appropriately managed/cleaned up. Which only shows when > > calling Py_Initialize/Py_Finalize multiple times, or using > > sub-interpreters. > > > > Could we tweak the report to somehow ignore the permanent refcounts for > just this test? If not then we might as well leave it out since that number > will never hit 0.
I can't think of any way to specifically ignore them (if we knew where they are we could just fix the refleaks :-)). Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
