[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed versions: +Python 3.7, Python 3.8 -Python 2.7, Python 3.3, Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

miss-islington added the comment: New changeset 73fc14d1f8441aef5ee03be627c63e74a6d915d6 by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.7': bpo-18085: Update refcounts.dat. (GH-11247) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/73fc14d1f8441aef5ee03be627c63e74a6d915d6 -- nosy: +miss-islington

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Change by miss-islington : -- pull_requests: +10487 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: New changeset 83dd4e87a62311cfea5fdd37e8a945b6b07bccee by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'master': bpo-18085: Update refcounts.dat. (GH-11247) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/83dd4e87a62311cfea5fdd37e8a945b6b07bccee --

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: PR 11247 adds more functions and fixes some errors. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- pull_requests: -10478 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- pull_requests: -10477 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- pull_requests: +10476, 10477 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- pull_requests: +10476, 10477, 10478 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- pull_requests: +10476 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: No, I hadn't verified all names. I'm sure there are API functions not mentioned in refcounts.dat. See also issue23903. It would be nice to have a tool that parses Python source headers and produce lists of all public names in different formats for manual

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Fred L. Drake, Jr. added the comment: I don't think this is a duplicate of issue 9755; this relates to verifying the data, and that revolves around possible process improvements. Whether this issue should be closed is tied to whether the file has been verified, as the issue title suggests. I

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Berker Peksag added the comment: Can we now close this as a duplicate of issue 9755? -- nosy: +berker.peksag ___ Python tracker ___

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com: -- priority: normal - low ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18085 ___ ___

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset ffe24e3e7a2a by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '3.3': Issue #18085: Add missed const modifier for some entries in refcounts.dat. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ffe24e3e7a2a New changeset 6587fd3d89ae by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default': Issue

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Since creating refcounts.dat many functions changed their argument's types from `char*` to `const char*`. Here is a patch which fixes mismatches (perhaps not all). refcounts.dat in 3.x contains PyInt_* functions which don't exist in 3.x. --

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Amaury Forgeot d'Arc added the comment: And is it necessary to list all functions there? Many functions share the same behavior: they don't change the ownership of PyObject* passed as argument, and return a new reference. Only document functions that don't conform to this rule, like

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Skip Montanaro added the comment: And is it necessary to list all functions there? Probably not. However, BITD, I was figuring this stuff out as I was going along by examining the source code and writing down what I found. No regard for common or special cases. S --

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

New submission from Serhiy Storchaka: I found one error in Doc/data/refcounts.dat (see issue9369, second argument of PyObject_CallMethodObjArgs is `PyObject*`, not `char*`). Perhaps there are other errors. How this file was generated first? Is it possible to write a tool which will

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 0889ab0d0da1 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '3.3': Issue #18085: Fix PyObject_CallMethodObjArgs()'s entry in refcounts.dat. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/0889ab0d0da1 New changeset ef9d42b98a3d by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '2.7': Issue #18085:

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Fred L. Drake, Jr. added the comment: I'm a little surprised that still exists. The first version was generated manually. -- nosy: +fdrake ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18085

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Brett Cannon added the comment: Wow, I didn't even know that file existed. It could actually help with some static analysis of the C code to verify that the refcounts are as expected w/o actually having to do inter-procedural analysis to figure out all of the refcount values. I wonder if

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Skip Montanaro added the comment: As far as I can tell that file is still manually maintained. I see it mentioned in Doc/conf.py, but nowhere else. It shouldn't be hard to deal with manually, as the C API doesn't change that often. A verifier shouldn't be terribly difficult to write, as

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Fred L. Drake, Jr. added the comment: Were I adding that today, I'd use a more verbose (but more standard) format, like configparser or JSON. If any further use is going to be made of it, that should be considered. Colon-delimited is a pretty fragile format. --

[issue18085] Verifying refcounts.dat

Skip Montanaro added the comment: Fred L. Drake, Jr. added the comment: Were I adding that today, I'd use a more verbose (but more standard) format, like configparser or JSON. If any further use is going to be made of it, that should be considered. Colon-delimited is a pretty fragile