GeezerVison

When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: I have made the requested changes; please review again.

(...) The problem is how to initialize the global unique identifier in a safe way (thread safety / atomicity). But that could be implemented using "local static" variables.

I forgot to mention that "local static variables" would be easier to initialize properly, since they cannot be accessed before the function is called: before Python is initialized.

The case of global static variables is worse: we cannot statically initialize them, we need something to dynamically initialize them. Maybe at the first access?

About the global unique identifier, one solution would be to use the memory address of the variable: it should be unique. I don't see why a compiler would merge two variables.

Draft pseudo API:

void get_interpreter_specific(uintptr_t key, size_t size, void *value);
int set_interpreter_specific(uintptr_t key, size_t size, void *value);

#define PyStaticVariable(TYPE) static TYPE
// FIXME: add assertion to ensure that VAR is a PyStaticVariable
#define PyStaticVariable_get(VAR, VALUE) \
   get_interpreter_specific((uintptr_t)&(VAR), sizeof(VAR), &(VALUE))
#define PyStaticVariable_set(VAR, VALUE) \
   set_interpreter_specific((uintptr_t)&(VAR), sizeof(VAR), &(VALUE))

PyObject* func(void)
{
PyStaticVariable(int) var;

// if var doesn't exist in the interpreter local storage,
// its value is always 0 by default, for any type,
// as global static variables in C
int value;
PyStaticVariable_get(var, value);
value += 1;
if (PyStaticVariable_set(var, value) < 0) { return NULL; }

Py_RETURN_VALUE;
}

Problem: we cannot pre-allocate the storage of "var" value into the interpreter "local storage" hash table, so set_interpreter_specific() can fail with a memory allocation failure :-(

@ericsnowcurrently Please re-generate the ast module:

Generated files not up to date
 M Python/Python-ast.c

When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: I have made the requested changes; please review again.

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone! I'm going to re-think this as you've all made good points. :) I may re-open the PR if it later makes sense to re-purpose it, but I'll probably instead tackle the statics in groups by Modules/Objects/Python.