M.-A. Lemburg schrieb am 04.02.2016 um 13:54: > On 04.02.2016 13:29, Victor Stinner wrote: >> But, why not PyObject_Malloc() & PObject_Free() were not used in the >> first place? > > Good question. I guess developers simply thought of PyObject_Malloc() > being for PyObjects, not arbitrary memory buffers, most likely > because pymalloc was advertised as allocator for Python objects, > not random chunks of memory.
Note that the PyObject_Malloc() functions have never been documented. (Well, there are references regarding their mere existence in the docs, but nothing more than that.) https://docs.python.org/3.6/search.html?q=pyobject_malloc&check_keywords=yes&area=default And, for example, the "what's new in 2.5" document says: """ Python’s API has many different functions for allocating memory that are grouped into families. For example, PyMem_Malloc(), PyMem_Realloc(), and PyMem_Free() are one family that allocates raw memory, while PyObject_Malloc(), PyObject_Realloc(), and PyObject_Free() are another family that’s supposed to be used for creating Python objects. """ I don't think there are many extensions out there in which *object* memory gets allocated manually, which implicitly puts a pretty clear "don't use" marker on these functions. Stefan _______________________________________________ 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
