Skip to content
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

GH-46412: More efficient bool() for ndbm/_gdbmmodule #96692

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 9, 2022

Conversation

gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

@gvanrossum gvanrossum commented Sep 8, 2022

Based on patches uploaded to BPO by BPO user eolson (Eric Olson).
No known email or GitHub username for attribution.

(The bug was opened in 2008, not quite a record but still impressive.)

Based on patches uploaded to BPO by BPO user eolson (Eric Olson).
No known email or GitHub username for attribution.

(The bug was opened in 2008, not quite a record but still impressive.)
@gvanrossum gvanrossum marked this pull request as ready for review September 8, 2022 20:13
Copy link
Member

@corona10 corona10 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice!
LGTM

@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member Author

There was a subtle indentation error that caused 'make patchcheck' to fail.

Also, 'test_int' is now flaky due to the int-conversion security check -- it checks the time it takes to do conversions and the Azure VM was too slow. We may need to discuss this on Discord.

@gvanrossum gvanrossum merged commit df50938 into python:main Sep 9, 2022
@gvanrossum gvanrossum deleted the faster-dbm-bool branch September 9, 2022 02:32
@corona10
Copy link
Member

corona10 commented Sep 9, 2022

There was a subtle indentation error that caused 'make patchcheck' to fail.

Ooops, I didn't notice that.

@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member Author

Neither did I -- it took me forever (firing up various tools) to notice.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants