- Python Home
- About
- News
- Documentation
- Downloads
- Community
- Foundation
- Developer's Guide
- Issue Tracker
- Issues
- Summaries
- User
- Administration
- Help
Message367009
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | vstinner |
|---|---|
| Recipients | BTaskaya, gvanrossum, lys.nikolaou, pablogsal, vstinner |
| Date | 2020-04-22.15:16:53 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1587568613.86.0.974744348815.issue40334@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Once PR 19503 will be merged, I would be interested to see if setjmp()/longjmp() can be avoided. I'm scared by these functions: they require that all functions in between setjmp() and longjmp() call stack have no state and don't need any cleanup at exit. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2020-04-22 15:16:53 | vstinner | set | recipients: + vstinner, gvanrossum, lys.nikolaou, pablogsal, BTaskaya |
| 2020-04-22 15:16:53 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1587568613.86.0.974744348815.issue40334@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2020-04-22 15:16:53 | vstinner | link | issue40334 messages |
| 2020-04-22 15:16:53 | vstinner | create | |

