Compute block_counts iteratively with explicit stack#13
Open
maffoo wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
This avoids RecursionError when processing some profiles. Could get a similar effect using `sys.setrecursionlimit` with the existing recursive implementation, but there's no way to choose a sufficiently large limit, so a non-recursive implementation seems safer.
Author
|
Hi @baverman, I wanted to ask whether there's any chance to get this merged? I'd love to be able to continue using flameprof without having to patch it locally to increase the stack size. |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
I get recursion errors when converting some large profiles with flameprof. This change avoids these RecursionErrors by using iteration with an explicit stack to compute block counts. Could get a similar effect using
sys.setrecursionlimitwith the existing recursive implementation, but there's no way to choose a sufficiently large limit, so a non-recursive implementation seems safer.