GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. |
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites |
GeezerVison is showing mail.python.org — [Python-Dev] Usefulness of binary compatibility accross Python versions? [Python-Dev] Usefulness of binary compatibility accross Python versions?Random832 random832 at fastmail.comSun Dec 17 21:07:02 EST 2017
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017, at 08:22, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Typically, when adding a tp_XXX slot, you also need to add a > Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_XXX type flag to signal those static type structures > that have been compiled against a recent enough PyTypeObject > definition. This way, extensions compiled against Python N-1 are > supposed to "still work": as they don't have Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_XXX set, > the core Python runtime won't try to access the (non-existing) tp_XXX > member. Is there any practical for of having the flag off for one slot and on for another slot that's been added later? Could this be replaced (that is, a slot for such a thing added before it's too late) with a simple counter that goes up with each version, and any "unused" slot should have NULL or some other sentinel value? If it really is important to have the flags themselves, just add another set of flags - Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_MORE_FLAGS.
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list |
| You are visitor 01402520 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up. Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required. |