Skip to content

Conversation

@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
Member

@ZeroIntensityZeroIntensity commented Nov 21, 2024

As seen with gh-127055, the C analyzer doesn't like static local variables, but it's fine to do so for a PyMutex. If we want to use a similar approach for other libc functions (as mentioned in gh-127081), it would be better to gracefully handle this instead of adding to ignored.tsv every time.

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

Can you rebase your PR on the main branch and remove:

diff --git a/Tools/c-analyzer/cpython/ignored.tsv b/Tools/c-analyzer/cpython/ignored.tsv index 4327a111eed..686f3935d91 100644 --- a/Tools/c-analyzer/cpython/ignored.tsv+++ b/Tools/c-analyzer/cpython/ignored.tsv@@ -739,7 +739,6 @@ Modules/expat/xmlrole.c - declClose - Modules/expat/xmlrole.c - error - ## other -Modules/grpmodule.c grp_getgrall_impl getgrall_mutex - Modules/_io/_iomodule.c - _PyIO_Module - Modules/_sqlite/module.c - _sqlite3module - Modules/clinic/md5module.c.h _md5_md5 _keywords -

Copy link
Member

@ericsnowcurrentlyericsnowcurrently left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would you mind removing any corresponding variables from ignored.tsv (and/or globals-to-fix.tsv), like the one added in gh-127055? That would help verify that this change is working right.

@bedevere-app
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
MemberAuthor

Ok, the ignore from Victor's PR has been removed. I'll do a more thorough audit of what needs to get un-ignored when I'm more available later today.

Copy link
Member

@vstinnervstinner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
MemberAuthor

Hmm, this seems like a bedevere bug. This should still have awaiting changes per Eric's review, not awaiting merge.

Copy link
Member

@ericsnowcurrentlyericsnowcurrently left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
MemberAuthor

Did a search, and it looks like no other mutexes need to get un-ignored. We're good to merge.

@vstinnervstinner merged commit 89125e9 into python:mainNov 22, 2024
@vstinner
Copy link
Member

Merged, thanks.

@ZeroIntensityZeroIntensity deleted the static-mutex-in-analyzer branch November 22, 2024 11:20
ebonnal pushed a commit to ebonnal/cpython that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2025
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@ZeroIntensity@vstinner@ericsnowcurrently