gh-111354: simplify detection of RESUME after YIELD_VALUE at except-depth 1 #111368
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
iritkatriel requested review from brettcannon, ericsnowcurrently, markshannon, ncoghlan and warsaw as code owners 
…hon#111402) unistd.h is needed by alarm() and pause() functions.
…thon#110884) - `ThreadedChildWatcher.close()` is now *officially* a no-op; `_join_threads()` never did anything. - Threads created by that class are now named `asyncio-waitpid-NNN`. - `test.test_asyncio.utils.TestCase.close_loop()` now waits for the child watcher's threads, but not forever; if a thread hangs, it raises `RuntimeError`.
* Include Python version in cache.config key, after Python setup * Remove EOL 3.7 from branch triggers
…GH-111336) * Try to fix asyncio.Server.wait_closed() again I identified the condition that `wait_closed()` is intended to wait for: the server is closed *and* there are no more active connections. When this condition first becomes true, `_wakeup()` is called (either from `close()` or from `_detach()`) and it sets `_waiters` to `None`. So we just check for `self._waiters is None`; if it's not `None`, we know we have to wait, and do so. A problem was that the new test introduced in 3.12 explicitly tested that `wait_closed()` returns immediately when the server is *not* closed but there are currently no active connections. This was a mistake (probably a misunderstanding of the intended semantics). I've fixed the test, and added a separate test that checks exactly for this scenario. I also fixed an oddity where in `_wakeup()` the result of the waiter was set to the waiter itself. This result is not used anywhere and I changed this to `None`, to avoid a GC cycle. * Update Lib/asyncio/base_events.py --------- Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>
iritkatriel requested review from 1st1, asvetlov, barneygale, ezio-melotti, gvanrossum, hugovk, kumaraditya303 and willingc as code owners 
| The following commit authors need to sign the Contributor License Agreement: Click the button to sign: |
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
13 participants
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.
gen_closeneeds to know whether aRESUMEfollows aYIELD_VALUEwhich is at except-depth 1, for an important optimization. Currently the compiler stores this information in the oparg ofYIELD_VALUE, which requiresgen_closeto peek into the bytecode (which is unsafe in the debugger). This PR puts this information in the oparg of theRESUME, and removes the oparg ofYIELD_VALUE. The result is simpler and safer code in gen_close.It also removes an anomaly in the bytecode definitions, where we needed to add a meaningless assertion to make the code generator understand that YIELD_VALUE has an oparg even though it doesn't use it.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--111368.org.readthedocs.build/