bpo-38316: describe co_stacksize a little bit better

[isidentical]

https://bugs.python.org/issue38316

[ammaraskar]

hmm, now that I think about this more. I think more appropriate wording would be:

co_stacksize is the largest size the stack will grow to when executing the function;

[isidentical]

@ammaraskar can you check it now?

[ammaraskar]

LGTM with final suggestion

[ammaraskar]

@vstinner Would you mind taking a look at this?

[vstinner]

Objects/frameobject.c allocates an array of code->co_stacksize + code->co_nlocals + ncells + nfrees items. The array size doesn't chagne during the execution of the function, it's not like x86 machine mode which manipulates the stack pointer (SP) register and use PUSH/POP.

:attr:co_stacksize is the required stack size (including local variables)

So this definition sounds wrong to me.

Instead, I suggest this definition:

:attr:`co_stacksize` is the required stack size

=> just remove (including local variables).

[bedevere-bot]

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.

[isidentical]

I have made the requested changes; please review again

[bedevere-bot]

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@vstinner: please review the changes made to this pull request.

[miss-islington]

Thanks @isidentical for the PR, and @vstinner for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.7.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[miss-islington]

Thanks @isidentical for the PR, and @vstinner for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[miss-islington]

Sorry, @isidentical and @vstinner, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.7 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker d587272fe3b0fcad2f23a490e76f9f82ca7d64ef 3.7

[miss-islington]

Sorry @isidentical and @vstinner, I had trouble checking out the 3.8 backport branch.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker d587272fe3b0fcad2f23a490e76f9f82ca7d64ef 3.8

[vstinner]

@isidentical: The automated backport to 3.7 and 3.8 failed. Can you please try to manually backport these changes? Use " cherry_picker d587272 3.8" or "git cherry-pick -x d587272".

[vstinner]

Ping @isidentical, tell me if you prefer that I do the backport.

[isidentical]

Thanks for the ping @vstinner, I totally forgot backports. Sending them right away

[bedevere-bot]

GH-17660 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.7 branch.

[bedevere-bot]

GH-17661 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.8 branch.