Issue 25902: Fixed various refcount issues in ElementTree iteration

Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats	Patch
Lib/test/test_xml_etree.py	View	1	1 chunk	+51 lines, -0 lines	0 comments	Download
Lib/xml/etree/ElementTree.py	View	1	1 chunk	+6 lines, -4 lines	0 comments	Download
Modules/_elementtree.c	View	1	5 chunks	+60 lines, -32 lines	0 comments	Download

Expand All Messages | Collapse All Messages

Martin Panter

https://bugs.python.org/review/25902/diff/16189/Modules/_elementtree.c File Modules/_elementtree.c (right): https://bugs.python.org/review/25902/diff/16189/Modules/_elementtree.c#newcode2088 Modules/_elementtree.c:2088: Py_INCREF(elem); As far as I can see, root_element is ...

3 years, 8 months ago #1

storchaka_gmail.com

3 years, 8 months ago #2

https://bugs.python.org/review/25902/diff/16189/Modules/_elementtree.c
File Modules/_elementtree.c (right):

https://bugs.python.org/review/25902/diff/16189/Modules/_elementtree.c#newcod...
Modules/_elementtree.c:2088: Py_INCREF(elem);
On 2015/12/21 04:50:16, vadmium wrote:
> As far as I can see, root_element is constant for the life of the iterator, so
> is its extra reference counting really necessary?

May be not. At least I failed to get a crash here. But for certainty I'll left
it here.

https://bugs.python.org/review/25902/diff/16189/Modules/_elementtree.c#newcod...
Modules/_elementtree.c:2139: Py_INCREF(elem);
On 2015/12/21 04:50:16, vadmium wrote:
> It looks like parent_stack_push_new() cannot cause the borrowed reference to
be
> lost, so maybe you can move this until afterwards. Or do you think the code is
> cleaner this way?

Yes, this can be moved until afterwards.

Expand All Messages | Collapse All Messages

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 #

Messages