-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35.1k
gh-155176: Don't track frozendicts whose contents can never be tracked by the GC #155178
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
aisk
wants to merge
2
commits into
python:main
Choose a base branch
from
aisk:frozendict-untrack
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+88
−6
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions
3
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core_and_Builtins/2026-08-05-00-02-51.gh-issue-155176.6Gz2aR.rst
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
| :class:`frozendict` objects whose keys and values can never be tracked by | ||
| the garbage collector are no longer tracked, like :class:`frozenset` | ||
| objects. |
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
please, test nested frozendicts :)
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.
I found that the current implementation doesn't support nested
frozendicts/frozensets. The outerfrozendictis conservatively tracked even if the nested one is untracked. This is because the current implementation of_PyObject_GC_MAY_BE_TRACKEDonly has special support for tuples:cpython/Include/internal/pycore_gc.h
Lines 85 to 93 in dd5a285
frozensethas the same limitation. We can update_PyObject_GC_MAY_BE_TRACKEDto supportfrozensetandfrozendicttoo. But I think this could be out of the current PR's scope, and adding a test to check that nestedfrozendicts are not supported and then updating it in another PR seems meaningless. If you think it's OK, I'll create another issue to track the process.