> On 8 Jun 2018, at 12:36, Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 08.06.18 11:31, Victor Stinner пише:
>> Do you suggest to trigger a fake "GC collection" which would just
>> visit all objects with a no-op visit callback? I like the idea!
>>
>> Yeah, that would help to detect objects in an inconsistent state and
>> reuse the existing implemented visit methods of all types.
>>
>> Would you be interested to try to implement this new debug feature?
>
> It is simple:
>
> #ifdef Py_DEBUG
> void
> _PyGC_CheckConsistency(void)
> {
> int i;
> if (_PyRuntime.gc.collecting) {
> return;
> }
> _PyRuntime.gc.collecting = 1;
> for (i = 0; i < NUM_GENERATIONS; ++i) {
> update_refs(GEN_HEAD(i));
> }
> for (i = 0; i < NUM_GENERATIONS; ++i) {
> subtract_refs(GEN_HEAD(i));
> }
> for (i = 0; i < NUM_GENERATIONS; ++i) {
> revive_garbage(GEN_HEAD(i));
> }
> _PyRuntime.gc.collecting = 0;
> }
> #endif
Wouldn’t it be enough to visit just the the newly tracked object in
PyObject_GC_Track with a visitor function that does something minimal to verify
that the object value is sane, for example by checking
PyType_Ready(Py_TYPE(op)).
That would find issues where objects are tracked before they are initialised
far enough to be save to visit, without changing GC behavior. I have no idea
what the performance impact of this is though.
Ronald
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
