Re: plugged a memleak

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Wed 21 Mar 2012 22:02, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>>> See c05805a4ea764dec5a0559edefcdfb9761191d07 in stable-2.0 for the
>>> gnarly details.  The summary is that applicable smobs were being leaked,
>>> because they were referenced in the values of weak-key tables.
>>
>> I was wondering whether removing ‘smob-call’ would break binary
>> compatibility, but presumably that instruction could not possibly end up
>> in user bytecode on disk, right?
>
> Presumably not.  It is documented, though.  We can remove it, but its
> continued presence doesn't cost us anything.  I'm OK with either option

Right, we can leave it.

Thanks!

Ludo’.