Merge from 3.6.

This commit is contained in:
Serhiy Storchaka 2016-12-14 19:54:38 +02:00
commit 386072ebe0
3 changed files with 3 additions and 31 deletions

View File

@ -1662,6 +1662,7 @@ order (MRO) for bases """
self.assertEqual(b.foo, 3)
self.assertEqual(b.__class__, D)
@unittest.expectedFailure
def test_bad_new(self):
self.assertRaises(TypeError, object.__new__)
self.assertRaises(TypeError, object.__new__, '')
@ -1708,6 +1709,7 @@ order (MRO) for bases """
object.__init__(A(3))
self.assertRaises(TypeError, object.__init__, A(3), 5)
@unittest.expectedFailure
def test_restored_object_new(self):
class A(object):
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):

View File

@ -22,9 +22,6 @@ Core and Builtins
- Issue #28731: Optimize _PyDict_NewPresized() to create correct size dict.
Improve speed of dict literal with constant keys up to 30%.
- Issue #5322: Fixed setting __new__ to a PyCFunction inside Python code.
Original patch by Andreas Stührk.
Library
-------

View File

@ -6878,34 +6878,7 @@ update_one_slot(PyTypeObject *type, slotdef *p)
sanity checks and constructing a new argument
list. Cut all that nonsense short -- this speeds
up instance creation tremendously. */
PyObject *self = PyCFunction_GET_SELF(descr);
if (!self || !PyType_Check(self)) {
/* This should never happen because
tp_new_wrapper expects a type for self.
Use slot_tp_new which will call
tp_new_wrapper which will raise an
exception. */
specific = (void *)slot_tp_new;
}
else {
PyTypeObject *staticbase;
specific = ((PyTypeObject *)self)->tp_new;
/* Check that the user does not do anything
silly and unsafe like object.__new__(dict).
To do this, we check that the most derived
base that's not a heap type is this type. */
staticbase = type->tp_base;
while (staticbase &&
(staticbase->tp_flags & Py_TPFLAGS_HEAPTYPE))
staticbase = staticbase->tp_base;
if (staticbase &&
staticbase->tp_new != specific)
/* Seems to be unsafe, better use
slot_tp_new which will call
tp_new_wrapper which will raise an
exception if it is unsafe. */
specific = (void *)slot_tp_new;
}
specific = (void *)type->tp_new;
/* XXX I'm not 100% sure that there isn't a hole
in this reasoning that requires additional
sanity checks. I'll buy the first person to