Skip to content

[3.8] bpo-44114: Fix dictkeys_reversed and dictvalues_reversed function signatures (GH-26062) #26094

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

Closed

Conversation

miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

@miss-islington miss-islington commented May 13, 2021

These are passed and called as PyCFunction, however they are defined here without the (ignored) args parameter.

This works fine in some C compilers, but fails in webassembly or anything else that has strict function pointer call type checking.
(cherry picked from commit ab383eb)

Co-authored-by: Joe Marshall joe.marshall@nottingham.ac.uk

https://bugs.python.org/issue44114

…natures (pythonGH-26062)

These are passed and called as PyCFunction, however they are defined here without the (ignored) args parameter.

This works fine in some C compilers, but fails in webassembly or anything else that has strict function pointer call type checking.
(cherry picked from commit ab383eb)

Co-authored-by: Joe Marshall <joe.marshall@nottingham.ac.uk>
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@joemarshall and @serhiy-storchaka: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

2 similar comments
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@joemarshall and @serhiy-storchaka: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@joemarshall and @serhiy-storchaka: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@joemarshall and @serhiy-storchaka: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, I can't merge this PR. Reason: You're not authorized to push to this branch. Visit https://docs.github.com/articles/about-protected-branches/ for more information..

@iritkatriel
Copy link
Member

Since it's too late for 3.8, should this be closed?

@methane
Copy link
Member

methane commented May 22, 2021

I thought this PR and GH-26109 have been merged already.
But GH-26109 was rejected because 3.8 is closed for bug fixes.
So I close this too unless a security issue is caused by this bug.

@methane methane closed this May 22, 2021
@miss-islington miss-islington deleted the backport-ab383eb-3.8 branch May 22, 2021 07:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting merge type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants