Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On 04/28/2016 08:26 AM, Stefan Krah wrote: Random832 writes: A more relevant point would be that _decimal does *not* use the API in a way *which would be broken by the proposed change*, regardless of whether the way in which it uses it is subjectively correct or can cause leaks. And the

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

Stefan, could you explain which module you are talking about and why it would cost you a week? What is your responsibility here? --Guido (mobile) On Apr 28, 2016 8:28 AM, "Stefan Krah" wrote: > Random832 fastmail.com> writes: > > A more relevant point would be that

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

Random832 fastmail.com> writes: > A more relevant point would be that _decimal does *not* use the API in a > way *which would be broken by the proposed change*, regardless of > whether the way in which it uses it is subjectively correct or can cause > leaks. And the ultimate point is that I

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

Serhiy Storchaka gmail.com> writes: > 2. Most code that use PyModule_AddObject() doesn't work as intended. > Since the bahavior of PyModule_AddObject() contradicts the documentation > and is contrintuitive, we can't blame authors in this. > > I don't say this is a high-impacting bug, I even

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016, at 10:11, Stefan Krah wrote: > For actual users of Valgrind this is patently obvious and was > pretty much the point of my post. A more relevant point would be that _decimal does *not* use the API in a way *which would be broken by the proposed change*, regardless of whether

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

Random832 fastmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016, at 05:05, Stefan Krah wrote: > > $ valgrind --suppressions=Misc/valgrind-python.supp ./python -c "import > > decimal" > > > > [...] > > ==16945== LEAK SUMMARY: > > ==16945==definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > >

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On 28.04.16 11:38, Stefan Krah wrote: Serhiy Storchaka gmail.com> writes: No impact except emitting a deprecation warning at build time. But we can remove a deprecation warning and add it in future release if this is annoying. But are you sure, that your code uses PyModule_AddObject()

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016, at 05:05, Stefan Krah wrote: > $ valgrind --suppressions=Misc/valgrind-python.supp ./python -c "import > decimal" > > [...] > ==16945== LEAK SUMMARY: > ==16945==definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > Well, the obvious

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

Serhiy Storchaka gmail.com> writes: > But are you sure, that your code uses PyModule_AddObject() correctly? > Only two modules in the stdlib (_json and _tkinter) used it correctly. > Other modules have bugs even in tries to use PyModule_AddObject() > correctly for some operations. For the

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

Serhiy Storchaka gmail.com> writes: > No impact except emitting a deprecation warning at build time. But we > can remove a deprecation warning and add it in future release if this is > annoying. > > But are you sure, that your code uses PyModule_AddObject() correctly? > Only two modules in

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On 28.04.16 01:24, Case Van Horsen wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: I think it is better to have relation with PyModule_AddIntConstant() etc than with PyObject_SetAttrString. My patch doesn't introduce new public function, but changes the

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > I think it is better to have relation with PyModule_AddIntConstant() etc > than with PyObject_SetAttrString. > > My patch doesn't introduce new public function, but changes the behavior of > the old function. This

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

Hrvoje Niksic avl.com> writes: > This inconsistency has caused bugs (or, more fairly, potential leaks) > before, see http://bugs.python.org/issue1782 > > Unfortunately, the suggested Python 3 change to PyModule_AddObject was > not accepted. First, these "leaks" only potentially show up when

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On 27.04.16 16:08, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 27 April 2016 at 17:14, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: I think that we can resolve this issue by following steps: 1. Add a new function PyModule_AddObject2(), that steals a reference even on failure. I'd suggest a variant on this that

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On 27.04.16 15:31, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: On 04/27/2016 09:14 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: There are three functions (or at least three documented functions) in C API that "steals" references: PyList_SetItem(), PyTuple_SetItem() and PyModule_AddObject(). The first two "steals" references even on

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On 27.04.16 10:14, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: There are three functions (or at least three documented functions) in C API that "steals" references: PyList_SetItem(), PyTuple_SetItem() and PyModule_AddObject(). The first two "steals" references even on failure, and this is well known behaviour. But

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On 27 April 2016 at 23:08, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 27 April 2016 at 17:14, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: >> I think that we can resolve this issue by following steps: >> >> 1. Add a new function PyModule_AddObject2(), that steals a reference even on >>

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On 27 April 2016 at 17:14, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > I think that we can resolve this issue by following steps: > > 1. Add a new function PyModule_AddObject2(), that steals a reference even on > failure. I'd suggest a variant on this that more closely matches the

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On 04/27/2016 09:14 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: There are three functions (or at least three documented functions) in C API that "steals" references: PyList_SetItem(), PyTuple_SetItem() and PyModule_AddObject(). The first two "steals" references even on failure, and this is well known behaviour.

Re: [Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > I think that we can resolve this issue by following steps: > > 1. Add a new function PyModule_AddObject2(), that steals a reference even on > failure. +1 It would be good to document PyModule_AddObject's current

[Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()

There are three functions (or at least three documented functions) in C API that "steals" references: PyList_SetItem(), PyTuple_SetItem() and PyModule_AddObject(). The first two "steals" references even on failure, and this is well known behaviour. But PyModule_AddObject() "steals" a reference