gh-116098: Clean up frame allocation code and remove the invalid sneaky frame test#116687
Merged
brandtbucher merged 2 commits intopython:mainfrom Mar 12, 2024
Merged
Conversation
brandtbucher
added
tests
Member
|
Probably not worth backporting. |
vstinner
pushed a commit
to vstinner/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2024
adorilson
pushed a commit
to adorilson/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 25, 2024
diegorusso
pushed a commit
to diegorusso/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2024
andersk
reviewed
Sep 18, 2024
| // Just pretend that we have an owned, cleared frame so frame_dealloc | ||
| // doesn't make the situation worse: | ||
| f->f_frame = (_PyInterpreterFrame *)f->_f_frame_data; | ||
| f->f_frame->owner = FRAME_CLEARED; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should also remove the corresponding assert(frame->owner != FRAME_CLEARED) statements, especially since FRAME_CLEARED was never a valid member of enum _frameowner (it’s from enum _framestate).
colesbury
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 2, 2025
GH-124148) The `owner` field of `_PyInterpreterFrame` is supposed to be a member of `enum _frameowner`, but `FRAME_CLEARED` is a member of `enum _framestate`. At present, it happens that `FRAME_CLEARED` is not numerically equal to any member of `enum _frameowner`, but that could change in the future. The code that incorrectly assigned `owner = FRAME_CLEARED` was deleted in commit a53cc3f (GH-116687). Remove the incorrect checks for `owner != FRAME_CLEARED` as well.
srinivasreddy
pushed a commit
to srinivasreddy/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2025
pythonGH-124148) The `owner` field of `_PyInterpreterFrame` is supposed to be a member of `enum _frameowner`, but `FRAME_CLEARED` is a member of `enum _framestate`. At present, it happens that `FRAME_CLEARED` is not numerically equal to any member of `enum _frameowner`, but that could change in the future. The code that incorrectly assigned `owner = FRAME_CLEARED` was deleted in commit a53cc3f (pythonGH-116687). Remove the incorrect checks for `owner != FRAME_CLEARED` as well.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After a discussion with @brandtbucher , we believe the test is not testing what it's supposed to anymore. No new frame is created during the frame allocation and the test lost its meaning. Under no circumstance this test is valid or checking something reasonable. So we should just remove this test.
The fundamental reason the test is invalid is that the current frame allocation code is immune from being interrupted by Python code that can somehow create the same frame object. So we also remove the dead code in frame allocation, and replace it with an assert and some comments.
There's no user observable behavior changes so I'll skip the news, unless someone disagrees.
test_framefails when running with-R 3:3argument #116098