Thanks, Stefan. Let me know if I can help in any way. I will track Cython master while I continue my port from C to Cython.
On 10 January 2014 09:52, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > Stefan Behnel, 10.01.2014 10:11: >> Simon Jagoe, 09.01.2014 14:04: >>>> Looking at the code in Py3, ISTM that it would be sufficient to do this iff >>>> >>>> (t->tp_flags & Py_TPFLAGS_IS_ABSTRACT) != 0 >>>> >>>> which should be rare enough. >>>> >>>> Obviously requires some user side testing to see if it breaks any other >>>> code... >>> >>> Thanks for looking at this. I am wondering if there is a reason why the >>> tp_alloc can't be replaced with the PyBaseObject_Type->tp_new directly? >> >> I don't know. At least, it's some unnecessary overhead in almost all cases. >> Not sure if that matters, there's enough costly stuff happening at this >> point anyway. >> >> ISTM that we'd also have to fix the issue that Nils Bruin found, otherwise >> we'd risk even more trouble on user side. >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.cython.user/10267 >> >> >>> My understanding is that initially, object's tp_new essentially just >>> called tp_alloc as Cython does now. Later the abc feature was added >>> with the abstract check happening in object's tp_new, while not changing >>> previous (non-abstract class) behavior. If Cython were to use this >>> instead of tp_alloc, it would be forward-compatible with future changes >>> to object. >> >> Agreed. > > Let's see what Jenkins has to say about it. > > https://github.com/cython/cython/commit/ddaffbe78c06e580ca0d9cd334c7a28a4de5c40b > > Stefan > > _______________________________________________ > cython-devel mailing list > cython-devel@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
