gh-158592: Skip reallocation when shrinking a small list by corona10 · Pull Request #158787 · python/cpython

corona10 · 2026-10-04T03:02:27Z

Issue: del list[index] never reallocates the array #158592

corona10 · 2026-10-04T03:27:42Z

cc @x42005e1f @ZeroIntensity @picnixz

Here is the data (based on unittests, bm_nbody, bm_fannkuch), why I choose this way.
Shows a similar distribution.

allocated	shrink calls	% of calls	cumulative	realloc to same capacity	bytes / real realloc
<= 4	351,958	27.8%	27.8%	351,935 (100%)	0 B
5 - 8	718,926	56.9%	84.7%	290,077 (40%)	38 B
9 - 16	158,291	12.5%	97.2%	0	45 B
17 - 32	30,160	2.4%	99.6%	0	121 B
33 - 64	4,031	0.3%	99.9%	0	258 B
65 - 128	646	0.05%	100.0%	0	404 B
> 128	501	0.04%		0	1.2 KB - 267 KB
total	1,264,513			642,012 (51%)

And here is the microbenchmark

Free-threading

main vs this PR

Benchmark	main	this PR
append+del[-1] size=0	14.8 ns	16.4 ns: 1.11x slower
append+pop size=0	20.7 ns	22.4 ns: 1.08x slower
append+del[-1] size=1	14.9 ns	16.4 ns: 1.10x slower
append+pop size=1	19.2 ns	13.7 ns: 1.40x faster
append+del[-1] size=3	15.0 ns	16.5 ns: 1.10x slower
append+pop size=3	18.3 ns	13.8 ns: 1.33x faster
append+del[-1] size=7	15.1 ns	16.3 ns: 1.08x slower
append+pop size=7	13.3 ns	13.7 ns: 1.03x slower
append+del[-1] size=15	15.0 ns	16.5 ns: 1.10x slower
append+pop size=15	13.4 ns	13.7 ns: 1.02x slower
append+del[-1] size=100	15.2 ns	16.3 ns: 1.08x slower
append+pop size=100	13.4 ns	13.7 ns: 1.02x slower
extend+del[S:] S=1	45.9 ns	40.4 ns: 1.14x faster
extend+del[S:] S=2	45.7 ns	41.0 ns: 1.11x faster
extend+del[S:] S=4	41.9 ns	43.3 ns: 1.03x slower
extend+del[S:] S=16	51.6 ns	52.3 ns: 1.01x slower
extend+del[S:] S=32	62.1 ns	63.5 ns: 1.02x slower
extend+del[S:] S=64	84.6 ns	87.5 ns: 1.03x slower
extend+del[S:] S=256	233 ns	243 ns: 1.04x slower
copy only N=32	69.3 ns	71.2 ns: 1.03x slower
del[-1] x N N=32	465 ns	573 ns: 1.23x slower
copy only N=64	90.6 ns	92.9 ns: 1.03x slower
del[-1] x N N=64	863 ns	1.04 us: 1.21x slower
copy only N=256	228 ns	232 ns: 1.02x slower
del[-1] x N N=256	3.29 us	3.71 us: 1.13x slower
del[-1] x N N=1024	12.9 us	14.2 us: 1.10x slower
copy only N=4096	6.12 us	6.23 us: 1.02x slower
del[-1] x N N=4096	70.6 us	77.6 us: 1.10x slower
copy only N=65536	108 us	111 us: 1.04x slower
del[-1] x N N=65536	1.18 ms	1.31 ms: 1.10x slower
del[0] x N N=256	12.3 us	12.9 us: 1.05x slower
del[0] x N N=4096	2.28 ms	2.31 ms: 1.02x slower
Geometric mean	(ref)	1.03x slower

Benchmark hidden because not significant (4): extend+del[S:] S=8, extend+del[S:] S=1024, extend+del[S:] S=4096, copy only N=1024

main vs #158602 alone

Benchmark	main	#158602
append+del[-1] size=0	14.8 ns	31.0 ns: 2.09x slower
append+pop size=0	20.7 ns	22.0 ns: 1.06x slower
append+del[-1] size=1	14.9 ns	23.1 ns: 1.55x slower
append+pop size=1	19.2 ns	20.5 ns: 1.07x slower
append+del[-1] size=3	15.0 ns	21.7 ns: 1.44x slower
append+pop size=3	18.3 ns	19.2 ns: 1.05x slower
append+del[-1] size=7	15.1 ns	16.1 ns: 1.07x slower
append+pop size=7	13.3 ns	13.6 ns: 1.02x slower
append+del[-1] size=15	15.0 ns	16.3 ns: 1.08x slower
append+del[-1] size=100	15.2 ns	16.1 ns: 1.06x slower
append+pop size=100	13.4 ns	13.6 ns: 1.02x slower
extend+del[S:] S=1	45.9 ns	47.4 ns: 1.03x slower
extend+del[S:] S=2	45.7 ns	46.5 ns: 1.02x slower
extend+del[S:] S=4	41.9 ns	43.0 ns: 1.03x slower
extend+del[S:] S=16	51.6 ns	52.6 ns: 1.02x slower
extend+del[S:] S=64	84.6 ns	88.7 ns: 1.05x slower
extend+del[S:] S=256	233 ns	240 ns: 1.03x slower
del[-1] x N N=32	465 ns	559 ns: 1.20x slower
del[-1] x N N=64	863 ns	1.01 us: 1.17x slower
copy only N=256	228 ns	233 ns: 1.02x slower
del[-1] x N N=256	3.29 us	3.64 us: 1.11x slower
del[-1] x N N=1024	12.9 us	14.0 us: 1.09x slower
copy only N=4096	6.12 us	6.23 us: 1.02x slower
del[-1] x N N=4096	70.6 us	75.3 us: 1.07x slower
copy only N=65536	108 us	110 us: 1.02x slower
del[-1] x N N=65536	1.18 ms	1.25 ms: 1.06x slower
del[0] x N N=256	12.3 us	12.8 us: 1.04x slower
Geometric mean	(ref)	1.08x slower

Default build

main vs this PR

Benchmark	main	this PR
append+del[-1] size=0	12.8 ns	13.9 ns: 1.08x slower
append+pop size=0	15.5 ns	16.7 ns: 1.08x slower
append+del[-1] size=1	12.7 ns	13.8 ns: 1.09x slower
append+pop size=1	12.6 ns	11.4 ns: 1.10x faster
append+del[-1] size=3	13.0 ns	13.9 ns: 1.07x slower
append+pop size=3	12.8 ns	11.4 ns: 1.13x faster
append+del[-1] size=7	13.1 ns	13.6 ns: 1.04x slower
append+pop size=7	10.7 ns	11.2 ns: 1.05x slower
append+del[-1] size=15	13.1 ns	13.5 ns: 1.03x slower
append+pop size=15	10.8 ns	11.2 ns: 1.04x slower
append+del[-1] size=100	13.1 ns	13.6 ns: 1.04x slower
append+pop size=100	10.9 ns	11.2 ns: 1.03x slower
extend+del[S:] S=1	34.3 ns	33.8 ns: 1.02x faster
extend+del[S:] S=2	35.7 ns	34.6 ns: 1.03x faster
extend+del[S:] S=16	45.5 ns	44.9 ns: 1.01x faster
extend+del[S:] S=4096	2.91 us	2.75 us: 1.06x faster
copy only N=32	62.0 ns	62.8 ns: 1.01x slower
del[-1] x N N=32	411 ns	489 ns: 1.19x slower
del[-1] x N N=64	744 ns	872 ns: 1.17x slower
copy only N=256	209 ns	206 ns: 1.01x faster
del[-1] x N N=256	2.82 us	3.14 us: 1.11x slower
del[-1] x N N=1024	10.9 us	11.7 us: 1.08x slower
del[-1] x N N=4096	57.5 us	60.1 us: 1.05x slower
copy only N=65536	68.8 us	68.3 us: 1.01x faster
del[-1] x N N=65536	983 us	1.02 ms: 1.04x slower
del[0] x N N=256	4.27 us	4.85 us: 1.14x slower
del[0] x N N=4096	616 us	627 us: 1.02x slower
Geometric mean	(ref)	1.03x slower

Benchmark hidden because not significant (9): extend+del[S:] S=4, S=8, S=32, S=64, S=256, S=1024, copy only N=64, N=1024, N=4096

main vs #158602 alone

Benchmark	main	#158602
append+del[-1] size=0	12.8 ns	64.1 ns: 5.01x slower
append+pop size=0	15.5 ns	16.0 ns: 1.03x slower
append+del[-1] size=1	12.7 ns	15.3 ns: 1.20x slower
append+del[-1] size=3	13.0 ns	15.5 ns: 1.19x slower
append+del[-1] size=7	13.1 ns	13.4 ns: 1.02x slower
append+pop size=7	10.7 ns	10.9 ns: 1.02x slower
append+del[-1] size=100	13.1 ns	13.3 ns: 1.02x slower
extend+del[S:] S=1	34.3 ns	33.4 ns: 1.03x faster
extend+del[S:] S=2	35.7 ns	34.8 ns: 1.03x faster
extend+del[S:] S=8	46.7 ns	46.1 ns: 1.01x faster
extend+del[S:] S=32	55.0 ns	53.6 ns: 1.03x faster
del[-1] x N N=32	411 ns	466 ns: 1.13x slower
del[-1] x N N=64	744 ns	853 ns: 1.15x slower
del[-1] x N N=256	2.82 us	3.18 us: 1.13x slower
del[-1] x N N=1024	10.9 us	11.5 us: 1.06x slower
del[-1] x N N=4096	57.5 us	60.4 us: 1.05x slower
del[-1] x N N=65536	983 us	1.01 ms: 1.02x slower
del[0] x N N=256	4.27 us	4.85 us: 1.13x slower
del[0] x N N=4096	616 us	627 us: 1.02x slower
Geometric mean	(ref)	1.07x slower

Benchmark hidden because not significant (17): append+pop size=1, 3, 15, 100; append+del[-1] size=15; extend+del[S:] S=4, 16, 64, 256, 1024, 4096; copy only N=32, 64, 256, 1024, 4096, 65536

Notes on the default build:

Script

import pyperf

INNER = 1000


def append_del_last(obj, inner=INNER):
    for _ in range(inner):
        obj.append(None)
        del obj[-1]


def append_pop(obj, inner=INNER):
    for _ in range(inner):
        obj.append(None)
        obj.pop()


def extend_del_slice(obj, blk, size, inner):
    for _ in range(inner):
        obj.extend(blk)
        del obj[size:]


def copy_only(blk):
    obj = blk[:]
    return obj


def del_last_repeatedly(blk, r):
    obj = blk[:]
    for _ in r:
        del obj[-1]
    return obj


def del_first_repeatedly(blk, r):
    obj = blk[:]
    for _ in r:
        del obj[0]
    return obj


def main():
    runner = pyperf.Runner()

    for size in (0, 1, 3, 7, 15, 100):
        obj = [None] * size
        runner.bench_func(f"append+del[-1] size={size}", append_del_last,
                          obj, inner_loops=INNER)
        obj = [None] * size
        runner.bench_func(f"append+pop size={size}", append_pop,
                          obj, inner_loops=INNER)

    for size in (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 256, 1024, 4096):
        inner = 100 if size <= 64 else 10
        obj = [None] * size
        blk = [None] * size
        runner.bench_func(f"extend+del[S:] S={size}", extend_del_slice,
                          obj, blk, size, inner, inner_loops=inner)

    for n in (32, 64, 256, 1024, 4096, 65536):
        blk = list(range(n))
        r = range(n - 1)
        runner.bench_func(f"copy only N={n}", copy_only, blk)
        runner.bench_func(f"del[-1] x N N={n}", del_last_repeatedly, blk, r)

    for n in (256, 4096):
        blk = list(range(n))
        r = range(n - 1)
        runner.bench_func(f"del[0] x N N={n}", del_first_repeatedly, blk, r)


if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

A nice side effect of this approach is that list.pop() benefits as well
(1.33x-1.40x faster on small lists), since it already goes through
list_resize().

x42005e1f · 2026-10-04T11:04:05Z

            FT_ATOMIC_STORE_PTR_RELEASE(a->ob_item[idx], a->ob_item[idx + 1]);
        }
-        Py_SET_SIZE(a, size - 1);
+        list_resize(a, size - 1);  // NB: shrinking a list can't fail


Here, you are doing the same thing I did in my PR. Please do not do this: to me, it does not seem very ethical. Keep exactly what the title says: the list_resize() tuning.

@x42005e1f This is the reason why I added you as co-authored of this patch. But your initial proposal would be very difficult to accept because of performance issue. To supplement your patch, I spent most of time for the data analysis.

But your initial proposal would be very difficult to accept because of performance issue.

In that case, why not merge this PR without the fix first, and then mine, or vice versa? What is the problem? You do not even have a NEWS entry about the fix. I even mentioned a possible tuning of list_resize() in the description of my PR, but I did not make the corresponding changes because that goes beyond the scope of this specific fix.

We can do that if you want. But for the performance optimization, we need to understand how it worth to do for especially for this kind of performance regression issue.

I am fine with merging this PR after your PR is merged.

This is part of effort to pursuade your issue is worth to fix.

Better communication for this kind of issue is that

Simply request to add more detail or your credit to NEWS.d (Sorry I forgot to mention this even I added you as co-author in commit log)
or

Request to merge this PR after your PR is merged.

To me, the second option seems preferable, so I am requesting it.

In anycase, we need to wait until other core devs like this approach. So please be patient.

imo. we should not merge a PR that we do not prefer and then merge a fix straight after. We could pull the changes here (or whatever changes we prefer in the end) into the first open branch though.

picnixz · 2026-10-04T11:18:48Z

I prefer this approach. How many bytes exactly are we allocating for a list of size N? having small list size N=16 seems arbitrary but if we have N=32, we could mitigate more cases such as del[-1] x N N=32 411 ns 489 ns: 1.19x slower (default build) or del[-1] x N N=32 465 ns 573 ns: 1.23x slower (FT build). Ideally I would push small lists at N=64 to del[-1] x N N=64 863 ns 1.04 us: 1.21x slower (FT build) to mitigate this case as well (ISTM that at N=64 the performance loss is less pronounced than at N<=64 but having 64 as a "small" list may bee too much).

Otherwise, it's ok for N=16 to be the threshold. (1.2 slower is not THAT bad eventually but this could become bad when users create lots of small lists and pop them entirely).

x42005e1f · 2026-10-04T11:20:11Z

And why not take a look at the point I made regarding the 1-2 items case in #158602 (comment)? If you had avoided those unnecessary reallocations when new_allocated == allocated, your measurements would have been quite different.

StanFromIreland · 2026-10-04T11:34:56Z

@x42005e1f please keep your comments respectful and constructive, and make sure your interactions follow the Python Code of Conduct. If this kind of behaviour continues, we may have to restrict your ability to contribute.

corona10 · 2026-10-04T12:27:38Z

@picnixz

How many bytes exactly are we allocating for a list of size N?

IIUC, allocated * 8.

but if we have N=32, we could mitigate more cases such as del[-1] x N N=32 411 ns 489 ns: 1.19x slower (default build) or del[-1] x N N=32 465 ns 573 ns: 1.23x slower (FT build).

If we want to be memory frugal, I think that 16 is the best value when we run unit tests and several benchmarks in pyperformance (97.2% of shrink requests are covered). I am not sure that we need to cover the remaining 2% since those reallocs actually reclaim memory.
But I am open to increasing this value to 32 since we can cover 99.6%.

Do you want to increase this to 32?

corona10 · 2026-10-04T12:32:07Z

And why not take a look at the point I made regarding the 1-2 items case in #158602 (comment)? If you had avoided those unnecessary reallocations when new_allocated == allocated, your measurements would have been quite different.

I think everything is a trade-off here, we would lose too much performance to be frugal with very tiny lists.

x42005e1f · 2026-10-04T12:49:54Z

I think everything is a trade-off here, we would lose too much performance to be frugal with very tiny lists.

Could you please explain? An exact comparison of integers is a fairly inexpensive operation (relative to reallocation), and skipping the reallocation is clearly cheaper than reallocating for the same capacity. Remember, new_allocated is as follows:

cpython/Objects/listobject.c

Lines 129 to 137 in f610e8c

    
               new_allocated = ((size_t)newsize + (newsize >> 3) + 6) & ~(size_t)3; 
        
               /* Do not overallocate if the new size is closer to overallocated size 
        
                * than to the old size. 
        
                */ 
        
               if (newsize - Py_SIZE(self) > (Py_ssize_t)(new_allocated - newsize)) 
        
                   new_allocated = ((size_t)newsize + 3) & ~(size_t)3; 
        
               if (newsize == 0) 
        
                   new_allocated = 0;

Modeling for newsize ranging from 0 to 16:

>>> for newsize in range(16):
...     new_allocated = (newsize + (newsize >> 3) + 6) & ~3
...     if newsize - (newsize + 1) > new_allocated - newsize:
...             new_allocated = (newsize + 3) & ~3
...     if newsize == 0:
...             new_allocated = 0
...     print(f"{newsize} -> {new_allocated}")
0 -> 0
1 -> 4  # newsize < 2
2 -> 8  # newsize < 4
3 -> 8  # newsize < 4
4 -> 8
5 -> 8
6 -> 12
7 -> 12
8 -> 12
9 -> 16
10 -> 16
11 -> 16
12 -> 16
13 -> 20
14 -> 20
15 -> 20

If we skip the reallocation for new_allocated == allocated, we can avoid expensive calls to the allocator. It is just an extra check before list_allocate_array(new_allocated).

Although, yes, I agree. It covers too few cases and is redundant given your changes (but sufficient without them, for >1.15x slower in the last table; the case where newsize == 0 can be directly changed to new_allocated = 4 if you do not want to reset the capacity to zero; however, it can simply be deleted, since 6 & ~3 == 4).

corona10 · 2026-10-04T14:14:25Z

@x42005e1f

My "trade-off" comment was about calling list_resize() on every del without any tuning,
the performance we lose on very tiny lists is too much for the memory we get back.

corona10 · 2026-10-04T14:28:01Z

Although, yes, I agree. It covers too few cases and is redundant given your changes (but sufficient without them, for >1.15x slower in the last table; the case where newsize == 0 can be directly changed to new_allocated = 4 if you do not want to reset the capacity to zero; however, it can simply be deleted, since 6 & ~3 == 4).

True for the benchmark run, but in the measured distribution the check still leaves more than 40% of shrink requests reallocating. So I think that the current approach is better.

ZeroIntensity · 2026-10-04T15:54:53Z

I'm much more comfortable with this fix. 3-7% slower is a lot easier to swallow than the 160% from the other PR.

eendebakpt · 2026-10-04T21:47:28Z

            FT_ATOMIC_STORE_PTR_RELEASE(a->ob_item[idx], a->ob_item[idx + 1]);
        }
-        Py_SET_SIZE(a, size - 1);
+        list_resize(a, size - 1);  // NB: shrinking a list can't fail


imo. we should not merge a PR that we do not prefer and then merge a fix straight after. We could pull the changes here (or whatever changes we prefer in the end) into the first open branch though.

corona10 · 2026-10-05T06:36:59Z

@eendebakpt

With your suggestion in free-threaded build (expect to be same as default build), it becomes much better:

Benchmark	main	this PR
append+del[-1] size=0	15.1 ns	16.0 ns: 1.06x slower
append+pop size=0	21.2 ns	23.2 ns: 1.09x slower
append+del[-1] size=1	15.3 ns	16.0 ns: 1.04x slower
append+pop size=1	19.8 ns	13.1 ns: 1.51x faster
append+pop size=3	18.8 ns	13.1 ns: 1.43x faster
append+del[-1] size=7	15.5 ns	15.8 ns: 1.02x slower
append+pop size=7	13.5 ns	13.2 ns: 1.03x faster
append+pop size=15	13.6 ns	13.1 ns: 1.03x faster
append+pop size=100	13.6 ns	13.3 ns: 1.02x faster
extend+del[S:] S=1	47.9 ns	39.5 ns: 1.21x faster
extend+del[S:] S=2	46.7 ns	39.8 ns: 1.17x faster
extend+del[S:] S=4	42.8 ns	40.9 ns: 1.04x faster
extend+del[S:] S=8	64.7 ns	42.3 ns: 1.53x faster
extend+del[S:] S=16	52.8 ns	52.2 ns: 1.01x faster
extend+del[S:] S=64	86.6 ns	89.5 ns: 1.03x slower
extend+del[S:] S=256	240 ns	244 ns: 1.02x slower
extend+del[S:] S=4096	2.94 us	3.03 us: 1.03x slower
copy only N=32	69.7 ns	71.4 ns: 1.02x slower
del[-1] x N N=32	469 ns	482 ns: 1.03x slower
del[-1] x N N=64	875 ns	938 ns: 1.07x slower
copy only N=256	231 ns	238 ns: 1.03x slower
del[-1] x N N=256	3.36 us	3.50 us: 1.04x slower
del[-1] x N N=1024	12.9 us	13.7 us: 1.06x slower
copy only N=4096	6.15 us	6.38 us: 1.04x slower
del[-1] x N N=4096	71.3 us	74.3 us: 1.04x slower
copy only N=65536	108 us	115 us: 1.06x slower
del[-1] x N N=65536	1.21 ms	1.25 ms: 1.04x slower
del[0] x N N=256	12.5 us	13.1 us: 1.04x slower
Geometric mean	(ref)	1.02x faster

Benchmark hidden because not significant (8): append+del[-1] size=3, append+del[-1] size=15, append+del[-1] size=100, extend+del[S:] S=32, extend+del[S:] S=1024, copy only N=64, copy only N=1024, del[0] x N N=4096

Co-authored-by: Bénédikt Tran <10796600+picnixz@users.noreply.github.com>

This reverts commit 134f2fd.

corona10 · 2026-10-05T12:44:44Z

@ZeroIntensity @eendebakpt @picnixz
Can I get the approval before merging this PR?

ZeroIntensity · 2026-10-05T16:38:38Z

+Py_NO_INLINE static int
+py_list_resize(PyListObject *self, Py_ssize_t newsize)


Can you add a comment explaining why we're forcing this to not be inlined?

ZeroIntensity · 2026-10-05T16:39:29Z

 * than ob_size on entry.
 */
-static int
+static inline Py_ALWAYS_INLINE int


And why is this one Py_ALWAYS_INLINE?

eendebakpt · 2026-10-05T16:59:47Z

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Skip the array reallocation when shrinking a small :class:`list`. Patch by


But large arrays are re-allocated! This PR solves a bug (feature?), which should be in the news entry.

bedevere-app Bot mentioned this pull request Oct 4, 2026

del list[index] never reallocates the array #158592

Open

bedevere-app Bot added the awaiting core review label Oct 4, 2026

corona10 requested review from ZeroIntensity and picnixz October 4, 2026 03:02

pythongh-158592: Skip reallocation when shrinking a small list

bbad8e9

corona10 force-pushed the gh-158592 branch from 11b0122 to 0448de3 Compare October 4, 2026 03:08

corona10 marked this pull request as draft October 4, 2026 03:09

bedevere-app Bot removed the awaiting core review label Oct 4, 2026

corona10 marked this pull request as ready for review October 4, 2026 03:28

bedevere-app Bot added the awaiting core review label Oct 4, 2026

x42005e1f reviewed Oct 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Address code review

23ad656

corona10 self-assigned this Oct 4, 2026

eendebakpt reviewed Oct 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

corona10 added 2 commits October 5, 2026 15:15

Address code review

5cd80db

Address code review

89b411f

picnixz reviewed Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core_and_Builtins/2026-10-04-11-59-33.gh-issue-158592._BpoeY.rst

corona10 and others added 2 commits October 5, 2026 16:03

Apply suggestion from @picnixz

a4f3cff

Co-authored-by: Bénédikt Tran <10796600+picnixz@users.noreply.github.com>

Revert "Apply suggestion from @picnixz"

dd855fd

This reverts commit 134f2fd.

corona10 mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2026

gh-158592: Reallocate the list's array when deleting by index #158602

Open

corona10 force-pushed the gh-158592 branch from 1ea3c3d to dd855fd Compare October 5, 2026 07:25

ZeroIntensity reviewed Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

eendebakpt reviewed Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

		Py_NO_INLINE static int
		py_list_resize(PyListObject *self, Py_ssize_t newsize)

		@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
		Skip the array reallocation when shrinking a small :class:`list`. Patch by

Uh oh!

Conversation

corona10 commented Oct 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

corona10 commented Oct 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Free-threading

main vs this PR

main vs #158602 alone

Default build

main vs this PR

main vs #158602 alone

Script

Uh oh!

x42005e1f Oct 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

corona10 Oct 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

picnixz commented Oct 4, 2026

Uh oh!

x42005e1f commented Oct 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

StanFromIreland commented Oct 4, 2026

Uh oh!

corona10 commented Oct 4, 2026

Uh oh!

corona10 commented Oct 4, 2026

Uh oh!

x42005e1f commented Oct 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

corona10 commented Oct 4, 2026

Uh oh!

corona10 commented Oct 4, 2026

Uh oh!

ZeroIntensity commented Oct 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

corona10 commented Oct 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

corona10 commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

corona10 commented Oct 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

corona10 commented Oct 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

x42005e1f Oct 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

corona10 Oct 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

x42005e1f commented Oct 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

x42005e1f commented Oct 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

corona10 commented Oct 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading