From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11226 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2011 15:47:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 11213 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2011 15:47:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (HELO qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.62.16) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:47:09 +0000 Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id objs1h0031c6gX851fnAzi; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:47:10 +0000 Received: from [10.127.238.91] ([65.206.2.68]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ofmx1h01R1U2a2h3jfmzlg; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:47:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [python] [patch] PR python/13331 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Paul Koning In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:52:00 -0000 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5B9A6F97-E70C-4778-AC4E-28335D43FECC@comcast.net> References: <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD030CE5E15C@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> <966B9848-BA1E-4777-BCE3-FD57AEA6E989@comcast.net> To: Tom Tromey Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00640.txt.bz2 On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Paul" =3D=3D Paul Koning writes: >=20 > Paul> In this loop there is an example of what I mentioned: if > Paul> value_to_value_object returns NULL, exception status has been set, = and > Paul> that should not be overwritten here. On the other hand, there is > Paul> missing cleanup: any objects added to the tuple before the failing > Paul> call need to have a DECREF done on them. >=20 > Won't decref'ing the tuple do this for us? > If not then I think there are a lot of similar bugs elsewhere. > But .. how could it not? That would be weird. Oops. Yes, you're right. I was worried about the case where you have the = tuple half set up. But that case is handled. Sorry for the confusion. paul