GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — bpo-29557: Remove abiguous line in binhex docs by davidwilemski · Pull Request #90 · python/cpython

Conversation

@davidwilemski

@davidwilemski davidwilemski commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this
module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it
should be removed.

It appears this comment was from the original documentation for this function in 1995 but the commit also does not include any context regarding a bug: https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3911d4a89ab0#l4.40

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
David Wilemski
Remove abiguous line in binhex docs
0a8eecc
"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this
module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it
should be removed.
@davidwilemski

davidwilemski commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

There was a bug fixed in the binhex function in 2009 but I have no idea if this was the bug that this documentation line was referring to: https://bugs.python.org/issue6369

I see no other open issues for binhex in the issue tracker so I believe this line should be removed until we have a concrete bug report that can be referenced by the documentation.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Merging #90 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #90      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.38%   82.38%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1428     1428              
  Lines      351138   351138              
==========================================
+ Hits       289282   289292      +10     
+ Misses      61856    61846      -10

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d50f188...0a8eecc. Read the comment docs.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

berkerpeksag
berkerpeksag reviewed Feb 14, 2017
View reviewed changes

@berkerpeksag berkerpeksag left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the PR! I think your analysis looks correct. However, it would be nice to record your research on bugs.python.org. Also, we can get more feedback from other core developers since not all of them subscribe to the GitHub repository.

See also step 5 at http://cpython-devguide.readthedocs.io/#quick-start

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
@davidwilemski

davidwilemski commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Sure, I wasn't sure where to draw the line for a trivial issue so didn't create a bug up front. I've created one now: http://bugs.python.org/issue29557

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@davidwilemski davidwilemski changed the title Remove abiguous line in binhex docs bpo-29557: Remove abiguous line in binhex docs Feb 14, 2017
@zware zware added CLA not signed and removed CLA not signed labels Feb 14, 2017
@the-knights-who-say-ni the-knights-who-say-ni added the CLA not signed label Feb 14, 2017
@zware

zware commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@davidwilemski Could you please add your GitHub username to your bpo profile?

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@davidwilemski

davidwilemski commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Sure, done.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@zware zware removed the CLA not signed label Feb 14, 2017
@the-knights-who-say-ni the-knights-who-say-ni added the CLA signed label Feb 14, 2017
berkerpeksag
berkerpeksag approved these changes Feb 14, 2017
View reviewed changes
@berkerpeksag
berkerpeksag merged commit 6de2b78 into python:master Feb 14, 2017
@berkerpeksag berkerpeksag added needs backport to 3.5 labels Feb 14, 2017
@berkerpeksag

berkerpeksag commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks!

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Mariatta referenced this pull request in Mariatta/cpython Mar 5, 2017
@davidwilemski @Mariatta
bpo-29557: Remove ambiguous line in binhex docs (#90)
fff6b83
"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this
module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it
should be removed.
(cherry picked from commit 6de2b78)
Mariatta referenced this pull request in Mariatta/cpython Mar 5, 2017
@davidwilemski @Mariatta
bpo-29557: Remove ambiguous line in binhex docs (#90)
4aeb876
"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this
module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it
should be removed.
(cherry picked from commit 6de2b78)
@Mariatta Mariatta removed needs backport to 3.5 labels Mar 5, 2017
Mariatta added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2017
@Mariatta
bpo-29557: Remove ambiguous line in binhex docs (GH-90) (GH-474)
6b7bc45
"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this
module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it
should be removed.
(cherry picked from commit 6de2b78)
Mariatta added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2017
@Mariatta
bpo-29557: Remove ambiguous line in binhex docs (GH-90) (GH-475)
130c4ec
"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this
module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it
should be removed.
(cherry picked from commit 6de2b78)
akruis pushed a commit to akruis/cpython that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2017
Anselm Kruis
Stackless issue python#90: raise RuntimeError on unbinding main taskl…
5c4a74b
…ets.

Unbinding (tasklet.bind(None) ) of main tasklets caused an assertion violation.
Now it raises RuntimError.

https://bitbucket.org/stackless-dev/stackless/issues/90
(grafted from 58b930a8a1d931da2f5bc834681af5d1452e1733 and 46335aa61c7c)
jaraco pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 2, 2022
@Mariatta
Assign the PR that failed to be backported to the core dev. (#90)
eed88df
Update the readme indicating that the PR will be assigned to the
core dev for follow up.
@gvanrossum gvanrossum mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2023
heap-use-after-free in _PyFunction_LookupByVersion #108253
Closed
@ngoldbaum ngoldbaum mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2024
Crash running PyO3 tests with --test-threads=1000 #124375
Closed
This was referenced Feb 11, 2025
segmentfault when pip installing setuptools #129992
Closed
segmentfault when pip installing setuptools #129993
Closed
@sergey-miryanov sergey-miryanov mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2025
Observed memory leak in ssl library: Python 3.14 GC issue #142516
Closed
SonicField added a commit to SonicField/cpython that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2026
@SonicField
W45: bridge-signature drift falsifier script
7feb38b
Implements scripts/w45_bridge_drift_falsifier.sh per
docs/w45-bridge-signature-drift-falsifier.md.

Mutate-Build-Verify-Restore loop:
- Mutates a bridge signature (extern "C" decl in builder.cpp + function
  definition in builder_emit_c.c, in lockstep) by appending a sentinel
  param 'int phx_w45_drift'.
- Verifies the build fails at the C++ dispatch-switch call site (which
  has the OLD arity).
- Restores both files; clean rebuild verifies tree state.

Catches the structural drift class identified by pythia python#90/python#91:
void* args at the bridge crossing erase the type-safety C++ overload
resolution would normally provide. 252+ dispatch sites in builder.cpp
post Phase 1 burndown — manual audit unscalable.

Initial 6 fixtures (per spec §2.2 + §2.6 retro):
- hir_builder_emit_before_with_c (Phase 1 python#6 retro)
- hir_builder_emit_setup_with_c (Phase 1 python#7 retro)
- hir_builder_emit_format_simple_c (Phase 1 python#2 sample)
- hir_builder_emit_copy_free_vars_c (Phase 1 python#4 sample)
- hir_builder_emit_get_yield_from_iter_c (Phase 1 python#4 sample)
- hir_builder_emit_primitive_load_const_c (Phase 1 python#5 sample)

Modes:
- --dry-run: stage mutations, no build (any agent — bypass build lock)
- --strict: exit 1 on FAIL (for gate integration)
- --verbose: show build stderr

Uses perl -0777 multi-line slurp for robust parsing of multi-line
extern decls + function definitions. Mutation marker (phx_w45_drift)
verified post-mutation to guard against silent no-op substitutions.

Build lock: BUILD mode invokes cmake --build --target jit; per CLAUDE.md
Phase 3D Build Lock, only testkeeper / gate_phoenix.sh may invoke with
builds enabled. --dry-run is unrestricted.

Authorization: theologian 21:55:24Z + supervisor 21:55:36Z + 22:33:17Z
DISPOSITION (C). §3.5 fold-into-C derivation falsifier (opcode-constant
shadow class) is deferred — needs W21 golden integration.

Sibling workstreams: W33 (zero-bridge verifier), W42 (refcount
correctness), W44 (DO-NOT-USE caller gate).
SonicField added a commit to SonicField/cpython that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2026
@SonicField
W45 fix: cmake build dir path (CMAKE_BUILD_DIR=Python/jit_build/build)
5c91add
Per testkeeper 22:44:12Z STRICT VERIFY: BUILD MODE was running
'cmake --build .' from REPO_ROOT, but cmake build dir is
Python/jit_build/build. All 6 fixtures errored with "not a CMake build
directory" → counted as FAIL → false GATE FAIL.

Fix: introduce CMAKE_BUILD_DIR variable + pass to both cmake calls
(per-fixture build at L153, post-restore rebuild at L194).

Concept already EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED by testkeeper manual sanity-test
on hir_builder_emit_format_simple_c — build failed at builder.cpp:2492
with "no matching function" + "candidate function not viable: requires
4 arguments, but 3 were provided". Exact void*-arg-erasure detection
pythia python#90/python#91 named.

Post-fix expected: 6/6 PASS in BUILD MODE.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@berkerpeksag berkerpeksag berkerpeksag approved these changes

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

5 participants

@davidwilemski @zware @berkerpeksag @Mariatta @the-knights-who-say-ni
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.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.