[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84685 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/library/dis.rst Doc/reference/simple_stmts.rst Doc/whatsnew/3.2.rst Include/opcode.h Lib/opcode.py Lib/test/test_exceptions.py Lib/test/test_scope.py Lib/test/test_syntax.py Misc/NEWS Python (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Sep 11 02:43:14 CEST 2010
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84685 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/library/dis.rst Doc/reference/simple_stmts.rst Doc/whatsnew/3.2.rst Include/opcode.h Lib/opcode.py Lib/test/test_exceptions.py Lib/test/test_scope.py Lib/test/test_syntax.py Misc/NEWS Python
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84619 - python/branches/py3k/Misc/developers.txt
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> wrote:
2010/9/10 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:39 AM, amaury.forgeotdarc <python-checkins at python.org> wrote:
There is no need to bump the PYC magic number: the new opcode is used for code that did not compile before.
If the magic number doesn't change for 3.2, how will 3.1 know it can't run pyc and pyo files containing these opcodes? The magic number is already bumped since 3.1. However, it's true that the number should be bumped anyway for good measure.
Yeah, I saw your subsequent checkin. I've updated the comment just above MAGIC and TAG to make it clearer when they should be changed.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84685 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/library/dis.rst Doc/reference/simple_stmts.rst Doc/whatsnew/3.2.rst Include/opcode.h Lib/opcode.py Lib/test/test_exceptions.py Lib/test/test_scope.py Lib/test/test_syntax.py Misc/NEWS Python
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84619 - python/branches/py3k/Misc/developers.txt
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]