Skip to content

bpo-35132: Fixes missing target in gdb pep0393 check. #11848

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
lisroach merged 3 commits into from
Mar 12, 2019
Merged

bpo-35132: Fixes missing target in gdb pep0393 check. #11848

lisroach merged 3 commits into from
Mar 12, 2019

Conversation

@lisroach
Copy link
Contributor

@lisroach lisroach commented Feb 14, 2019 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

https://bugs.python.org/issue35132

It looks like it only happens when built with optimizations which means many of the tests don't run, possibly why this was missed.

I believe target() is unneeded here since 'data' would exist regardless of the type of the target. Perhaps @vstinner or @ambv have more insight.

https://bugs.python.org/issue35132

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

vstinner commented Feb 14, 2019

I believe target() is unneeded here since 'data' would exist regardless of the type of the target. Perhaps @vstinner or @ambv have more insight.

I bet that it depends on the gdb version, I'm waiting for the reply of the bug reporter: https://bugs.python.org/issue35132#msg335518

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

vstinner commented Feb 19, 2019

@lisroach: Would you mind to add a NEWS entry? Something like "Fix py-list and py-bt commands of python-gdb.py on gdb7."

@lisroach
Copy link
Contributor Author

lisroach commented Mar 4, 2019

Sure thing. Maybe it would be better to wrap it in a try: except, if target() fails we try again without target?

vstinner
vstinner approved these changes Mar 4, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@vstinner vstinner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. You can merge it @lisroach, but this fix will need a backport to 3.7.

@lisroach lisroach merged commit 1ceb3a3 into python:master Mar 12, 2019
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

miss-islington commented Mar 12, 2019

Thanks @lisroach for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.7.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

bedevere-bot commented Mar 12, 2019

GH-12284 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.7 branch.

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Mar 12, 2019
@lisroach @miss-islington
bpo-35132: Fixes missing target in gdb pep0393 check. (pythonGH-11848)
1a6899d 
(cherry picked from commit 1ceb3a3)

Co-authored-by: Lisa Roach <lisaroach14@gmail.com>
vstinner pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 12, 2019
@miss-islington @lisroach @vstinner
bpo-35132: Fixes missing target in gdb pep0393 check. (GH-11848) (GH-…
047f8f2 
…12284)

(cherry picked from commit 1ceb3a3)

Co-authored-by: Lisa Roach <lisaroach14@gmail.com>
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

miss-islington commented Mar 12, 2019

Thanks @lisroach for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 2.7.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

miss-islington commented Mar 12, 2019

Sorry, @lisroach, I could not cleanly backport this to 2.7 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker 1ceb3a3d172dcf0ddff38d5d6b559443ad065b84 2.7

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

vstinner commented Mar 12, 2019

Oh, this change is specific to Python 3 and doesn't make sense in Python 2 which doesn't have the "pep393" code.

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

vstinner commented Mar 12, 2019

Thanks @lisroach for the fix ;-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@vstinner vstinner vstinner approved these changes

Assignees

@lisroach lisroach

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@lisroach @vstinner @miss-islington @bedevere-bot @the-knights-who-say-ni