GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — GH-95245: Move weakreflist into the pre-header. by markshannon · Pull Request #95657 · python/cpython Conversation
|
|
@ericsnowcurrently You've been playing with weakreflists recently. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mostly LGTM
I'd just like some clarity on what Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT means now and if we need a Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_WEAKLIST too.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| assert(!ctx->base->tp_itemsize); | ||
| type->tp_weaklistoffset = slotoffset; | ||
| slotoffset += sizeof(PyObject *); | ||
| if (type->tp_flags & Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT be set even if wasn't set on line 3089? In other words, could the flag have been set before type_new_descriptors() was called?
If so, that implies that Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT also implies a managed weaklist, which I'm not sure is correct.
Otherwise the assert on line 3088 should probably move up to before line 3082.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Further, if it's always either both-are-managed or neither then it would be helpful if the flag were more clear (e.g. Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT_AND_WEAKLIST).
If either can be managed separately then there should probably be a separate Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_WEAKLIST flag.
That might be necessary anyway since Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT is already part of 3.11.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We want both to be managed, or neither, but our hand might be forced in the case of multiple inheritance.
One base might have a managed dict, and the other an explicit weakreflist.
I expect this case to be rare.
Currently Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT is internal, it is set by the VM, but shouldn't be set by third-party code.
When we make it public, as we should do for 3.12, then it would make sense to add Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_WEAKLIST.
I'd like some sort of decision on #95589 first, though.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thinking about this a bit more, we can ensure both are explicit or both managed.
If one is explicit, the we make both explicit.
Moving from an explicitly declare offset to a managed one is unsafe, so we can't do that.
But we can do it the other way around.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here it only matters in the context of type_new_descriptors(). If we can guarantee the both-or-neither aspect in this "limited" context then that is sufficient for this PR (assuming we leave a comment to that effect).
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Regardless, my original question stands: could Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT already be set when type_new_descriptors() is called? If so, the branch on 3095 is now problematic, no?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| type->tp_weaklistoffset = slotoffset; | ||
| slotoffset += sizeof(PyObject *); | ||
| if (type->tp_flags & Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT) { | ||
| type->tp_weaklistoffset = -4 * sizeof(PyObject *); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the pre-header layout documented, either in a comment, the docs, or an adjacent .txt file? Either way, I don't see the weaklist's place in the pre-header added to such documentation in this PR. That information would be super helpful, since I can only guess what -4 * sizeof(PyObject *) means. A short comment here pointing to that documentation would be nice too.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Documenting the object layout is on the to-do list.
Early draft here: https://github.com/faster-cpython/cpython/blob/document-object-layout/Objects/object_layout.md
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What? No SVG?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| assert((type->tp_flags & Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT) == 0); | ||
| type->tp_flags |= Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT; | ||
| if (type->tp_flags & Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Likewise about Py_TPFLAGS_MANAGED_DICT implying something it didn't before (but only if the flag could possibly be set before type_new_descriptors() gets called).
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.