STINNER Victor <[email protected]> added the comment:
> PyModule_AddObjectRef() is just Py_XINCREF() followed by PyModule_Add(). But
> since most values added to the module are new references, Py_XINCREF() is
> usually not needed.
There is no general rule. I saw two main cases.
(A) Create an object only to add it into the module. PyModule_Add() and
PyModule_AddObject() are good for that case.
Example in the array module:
PyObject *typecodes = PyUnicode_DecodeASCII(buffer, p - buffer, NULL);
if (PyModule_AddObject(m, "typecodes", typecodes) < 0) {
Py_XDECREF(typecodes);
return -1;
}
This code can be rewritten with PyModule_Add():
PyObject *typecodes = PyUnicode_DecodeASCII(buffer, p - buffer, NULL);
if (PyModule_Add(m, "typecodes", typecodes) < 0) {
return -1;
}
Py_XDECREF(typecodes) is no longer needed using PyModule_Add().
(B) Add an existing object into the module, but the objet is already stored
elsewhere. PyModule_AddObjectRef() is good for that case. It became common to
have this case when an object is also stored in the module state.
Example in _ast:
state->AST_type = PyType_FromSpec(&AST_type_spec);
if (!state->AST_type) {
return 0;
}
(...)
if (PyModule_AddObjectRef(m, "AST", state->AST_type) < 0) {
return -1;
}
state->AST_type and module attribute both hold a strong reference to the type.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue42327>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
