On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
There's also the option of implementing the constraint directly in the
finder, which *does* have the necessary info (with the change to pass the
previous spec to find_spec).
Yeah, I thought of that. I just prefer the
On 31 Oct 2013 18:52, Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
There's also the option of implementing the constraint directly in the
finder, which *does* have the necessary info (with the change to pass
the
2013/10/29 Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com:
2013/10/29 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
I was thinking something similar. It would be useful to be able to pause
and resume
if one is doing any analysis work in the live environment. This would
reduce the
need to have
2013/10/31 Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com:
If I give access to this flag, it would be possible to disable
temporarily tracing in the current thread, but tracing would still be
enabled in other threads. Would it fit your requirement?
It's probably not what you are looking for :-)
As I
On 10/31/2013 05:20 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
I did another experiment. I replaced enable/disable/is_enabled with
start/stop/is_tracing, and added enable/disable/is_enabled functions
to disable temporarily tracing.
API:
- clear_traces(): clear traces
- start(): start tracing (the old enable)
-
Has anybody here heard about this, and, if so, is it anything we should
be thinking about:
How your compiler may be compromising application security
http://www.itworld.com/security/380406/how-your-compiler-may-be-compromising-application-security
___
Am 31.10.2013 15:48, schrieb MRAB:
Has anybody here heard about this, and, if so, is it anything we should
be thinking about:
How your compiler may be compromising application security
http://www.itworld.com/security/380406/how-your-compiler-may-be-compromising-application-security
Interesting read. I'm surprised that the researchers didn't contact us,
since the article mentions they found 5 bugs in Python. Regarding security:
the article seems to use that term mostly to attract eyeballs; there are no
specifics, just the implication that this *could* affect security.
But
I believe the 5 problems they found in Python were dealt with here
http://bugs.python.org/issue17016
2013/10/31 MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com:
Has anybody here heard about this, and, if so, is it anything we should
be thinking about:
How your compiler may be compromising application
Am 31.10.2013 15:48, schrieb MRAB:
Has anybody here heard about this, and, if so, is it anything we should
be thinking about:
How your compiler may be compromising application security
http://www.itworld.com/security/380406/how-your-compiler-may-be-compromising-application-security
I
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 Oct 2013 18:52, Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
There's also the option of implementing the constraint directly in the
finder,
31.10.13 16:56, Benjamin Peterson написав(ла):
I believe the 5 problems they found in Python were dealt with here
http://bugs.python.org/issue17016
Ah, now I have remembered author's name.
http://bugs.python.org/issue18684 contains some other fixes of this kind.
On 10/31/2013 10:57 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
I didnt' see this at first:
STACK was run against a number of systems written in C/C++ and
it found 160 new bugs in the systems tested, including ...
and Python (5).
Has anybody contact us? I neither saw a bug report nor a mail to
On 1 Nov 2013 01:37, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
. ;-)
I also suspect, that if properly spelled out, those use cases are
going to boil down to:
1. Throwing errors if you have an existing module object you can't
load into, and
2. Passing in a previous spec object, if available
In
14 matches
Mail list logo