Mailman 3 - capi-sig

C API discussions are moving to Discourse
by Petr Viktorin 07 Nov '22

07 Nov '22

Hello, This list is not used very much any more, and it gets more spam than legitimate messages (though only moderators see most of the spam). Most discussions have moved to Discourse. The currently active capi-sig moderators agree that it's time to retire this list and use Discourse instead, so that there's only one place to follow. Since today, there's a C API category on Discourse: https://discuss.python.org/c/30 Please prefer it for discussions around the C API! Since there are many references to the capi-sig list in the wild, we'll keep it open, but tell any posters to move to Discourse instead. If any core dev wants to take up capi-sig moderation and keep this list alive, I'll be happy to hand it over instead of closing it.

1 0

Moving to Discourse?
by Hugh Fisher 31 Oct '22

31 Oct '22

Apparently the Python-Dev mailing list is now being phased out and replaced by Discourse. Same thing going to happen to CAPI-SIG? -- cheers, Hugh (Hugo) Fisher

3 2

PyPy/HPy/GraalPy/CPython sprint in Duesseldorf (Germany)
by Antonio Cuni 29 Jul '22

29 Jul '22

Hi all, I hope this is not considered spam, but I think that it might be interesting for some people in this mailing list. We are organizing a HPy/PyPy/GraalPy/CPython/* sprint at the University of Düsseldorf (Germany) from 19th of September to the 23rd. We wanted to extend the invitation to interested CPython developers! https://www.pypy.org/posts/2022/07/ddorf-sprint-sep-2022.html cheers, Antonio

1 0

Splitting up _testcapimodule.c
by Petr Viktorin 08 Jul '22

08 Jul '22

Hello list, The _testcapimodule.c file is growing very big, to the point where I started to dread touching it. When adding a test I'm never sure if I'm missing a group of similar ones that it should be grouped with. It's difficult to get a sense of how tested some area of the API is. Code for a single topic is frequently split across several places (functions, type definitions, slot entries...), making me reach for my editor's bookmark feature more than I'd like. Do you feel the same? I opened an [issue], and a [PR] where I suggest how to split things up. Preferably, please keep the discussion there. [issue]: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/93649 [PR]: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/94549

2 1

Leading uderscore in C-API names (`_Py`): Private, or just a warning?
by Petr Viktorin 20 Jun '22

20 Jun '22

(Rather obviously, I'm not writing on behalf of the SC.) The Steering Council's response to my PEP 689 (Unstable C API tier) opened a subtle question that I'd like to get some discussion on: What does it mean if an API has a leading underscore (i.e. the `_Py` prefix)? It seems that currently, the underscore serves as a “warning” -- its users (and reviewers) should read the documentation when using such functions. (This might be more nuanced; I'll leave any details to other people so I won't misinterpret their views.) I was surprised to learn that this is the status quo, and I don't think it's a good one. So I took what I thought is the status quo, tightened it, and I present it as a proposal: ## Proposal Anything that starts with `_Py` is a fully internal, private CPython implementation detail. As a user, you can use it in a debugging session but don't rely on it existing (or being compatible) in any different CPython release. That said: - We won't break this internal API for no reason, so if you use it now and have good tests you don't need stop using it right now. - If you're using private API and don't see a public alternative, you should contact CPython devs to - see if we can add public API for the use case. - let us know that someone's using the API, and we should be extra careful with it. With this rule, you can simply grep your codebase for `_Py` to see if you're using API that can go away without warning. I'm aware that there are currently many underscored names that are intended to be used. Under this proposal, we should eventually add non-underscores aliases for them to make their status clear. (That's a desired end state; there's no rush to get 100% there.) ## Underscore as a warning The alternative (underscore means “warning”, read the documentation) is, IMO, unfortunate. The documentation for underscored functions is often missing, both for functions you can use and ones you shouldn't. Consider example questions like: - `_PyCode_GetExtra` is mentioned in PEP 523, but not documented on docs.python.org. As a user, can I use it? - `_PyImport_AcquireLock` is mentioned in a StackOverflow answer, but not on docs.python.org. As a user, can I use it? - I find that (say) `_PyArg_UnpackStack` is no longer necessary in CPython. As a core dev, where do I need to look to see if I can remove it? The issues these point out can't be fixed easily: there are hundreds of underscored functions exposed in the public headers, and no good way to prevent adding new ones (of either kind -- consumable or private). Some API is even only exposed for technical reasons: `_Py_NewRef` needs to be exposed, even though we'd like users to never use it. (This particular function is not too dangerous to use, but any macro or `static inline` function that's an implementation detail has the same issue.) But there's no way for CPython to mark something in a public API header as private. Something that's undocumented on purpose is indistinguishable from something we forgot to document. There's no way to check a codebase for using internal API, short of manually checking the docs of each function.

3 10

Re: Leading uderscore in C-API names (`_Py`): Private, or just a warning?
by Marc-Andre Lemburg 14 Jun '22

14 Jun '22

On 14.06.2022 11:54, Petr Viktorin wrote: > On 14. 06. 22 11:35, Marc-Andre Lemburg wrote: >> On 14.06.2022 11:15, Petr Viktorin wrote: >>> On 13. 06. 22 17:36, Marc-Andre Lemburg wrote: >>>> In the past we always said: "_Py* is an internal API. Use at your own >>>> risk.", which I guess is somewhere between the warning and the strict >>>> "don't use" policy you are describing. >>>> >>>> The problem with the "don't use" policy is that in some cases, there >>>> are no public APIs available to do certain things and so the extension >>>> writers have to resort to the private ones to implement their logic. >>>> >>>> E.g. to implement a free list for Python objects, you have to use >>>> _Py_NewReference() in order to create an object based on a memory >>>> area taken from the free list. If you want to create a bytes objects >>>> using overallocation, it's common to use _PyBytes_Resize() to resize >>>> the buffer to the final size. >>>> >>>> What sometimes happens is that after a while the private APIs get their >>>> leading underscore removed to then become public ones. >>> >>> It's not just about removing the underscore: when this happens the APIs should >>> also get documentation, tests, and some expectation of stability (e.g. that we >>> won't go randomly adding tstate parameters to them). >> >> Of course; all public APIs should ideally have this :-) >> >>>> This upwards >>>> migration path would be made impossible with the "don't use" policy. >>> >>> Why not? I have no doubt people will use private API, no matter how explicitly >>> we say that it can break at any time. >>> >>> My proposal is making this more explicit. And yes, it's also putting some more >>> pressure on core devs to expose proper API for use cases people have, and on >>> people to report their use cases. >> >> It would certainly be good to get more awareness for common uses of >> currently private APIs, but I'm not sure whether the proposed >> "don't use" policy would help with this. >> >> I have a feeling that the effect would go in a different direction: >> with a strict "don't use" policy core devs would get a blanket >> permission to change exposed _Py* APIs at will, without any consideration >> about breaking possible use cases out there. >> >> IMO, both parties should be aware of the issues around using/changing >> exposed APIs marked as private and ideally to the same extent. > > OK, but what are those issues? How do we get to the point where both parties > agree? We don't even know who the other party is. > >> Perhaps it would be better to leave the current "use at your own risk" >> approach in place and just add a new process for potentially having >> private APIs made public. > > But if we say "use at your own risk", what's the risk? Isn't that the same as > saying we don't support it at all and it might go away at any time? Not really, since the bar for core devs is higher when making changes to such internal APIs. A blanket "don't use" policy would make it easy for core devs to argue that any change is acceptable. If we provide a process to document external use of currently private APIs, both sides get to know each other and their use cases. The "risk" for the external developer is that the APIs may not get approved as public APIs. The process itself allows core devs to get a view into the use of those APIs and take more care when making changes to those APIs while the process of potentially making them public is still ongoing. Overall, we'd get a better idea on what extension writers need, while at the same it'd be clearer which of the private APIs can indeed be changed without causing disruption. If we say: please open a ticket when starting to use a private API, I think we'd get to a better C API in the long run. >> E.g. the above two cases are potentially candidates for such a >> process. I have used both in code I have written, because, AFAIK, >> there's no other way to implement the functionality otherwise. >> >> I'm pretty sure that fairly low level tools such as Cython will >> have similar cases. > > Indeed. Documenting and testing _Py_NewReference and its caveats sounds like a > good idea, and we might as well remove the underscore then. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Jun 14 2022) >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Support ... https://www.egenix.com/ >>> Python Product Development ... https://consulting.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 https://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ https://www.malemburg.com/

2 1

C-API for extending opaque types
by Petr Viktorin 26 May '22

26 May '22

Hello, When reviewing the PyType_FromMetaclass function proposed in [PR 93012], it occurred to me that it would be good to add better support for extending types with opaque structs. Consider the [tutorial example] of extending `list`, adapted to PyType_Spec: typedef struct { PyListObject list; int state; } SubListObject; static PyType_Spec Sublist_spec = { .name = "sublist.SubList", .basicsize = sizeof(SubListObject), ... }; If the PyListObject struct is not available (or opaque), as in the stable ABI, this approach won't work. The practical issue in PR 93012 is with metaclasses, which extend PyTypeObject or PyHeapTypeObject. Same idea but a bit “too meta” to be a good example. “Binding generator”-type projects that use the limited API resort to hacks in this area: see [PySide] or the experimental [limited-API branch of nanobind]. I propose adding API that treats the subclass-specific data as a separate struct, and the “base” as an opaque blob (manipulated either by accessor functions or, if the struct is available, directly). Concretely: - PyType_Spec.basicsize can be a negative (or zero) N to request -N bytes of *extra* storage on top of what the base class needs, so that the PyType_Spec can be static & read-only. - a new `void* PyObject_GetTypeData(PyObject *obj, PyTypeObject *cls)` returns the pointer to data specific to `cls`. - a new `Py_ssize_t PyObject_GetTypeataSize(PyTypeObject *cls)` returns the size of that data (computed as cls->tp_basicsize - cls->tp_base->tp_basicsize). - itemsize would get similar treatment, but I'll leave details to the PEP Intended usage: typedef struct { int state; } SubListObject; static PyType_Spec Sublist_spec = { .name = "sublist.SubList", .basicsize = -sizeof(SubListObject), ... }; ... sublist_type = PyType_FromSpec(Sublist_spec); ... SubListObject *data = PyObject_GetTypeData(instance, sublist_type); data->state++; What do you think? Is it a PEP-worthy idea? [PR 93012]: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/93012 [tutorial example]: https://docs.python.org/3/extending/newtypes_tutorial.html#subclassing-othe… [PySide]: https://github.com/pyside/pyside2-setup/blob/5.11/sources/shiboken2/libshib… [limited-API branch of nanobind]: https://github.com/wjakob/nanobind/compare/master...limited_api#diff-1457ce…

4 5

Require moderation or move to discuss.python.org?
by Brett Cannon 10 May '22

10 May '22

The signal:noise ratio due to spam is getting a bit high on this mailing list. Would the admins be up for turning on default moderation for people and then selectively turning it off? Or should this group move to discuss.python.org where spam issues aren't as much of a concern?

7 11

New script: add Python 3.10 support to your C extensions without losing Python 3.6 support
by Victor Stinner 07 May '22

07 May '22

Hi, I wrote a new script which adds Python 3.10 support to your C extensions without losing Python 3.6 support: https://github.com/pythoncapi/pythoncapi_compat For example, it replaces "op->ob_type" with "Py_TYPE(op)" and replaces "frame->f_back" with "_PyFrame_GetBackBorrow(frame)". It relies on the pythoncapi_compat.h header file that I wrote to implement Python 3.9 and Python 3.10 on old Python versions. Examples: Py_NewRef() and PyThreadState_GetFrame(). The _PyFrame_GetBackBorrow() function doesn't exist in the Python C API, it's only provided by pythoncapi_compat.h to ease the migration of C extensions. I advise you to replace _PyFrame_GetBackBorrow() (borrowed reference) with PyFrame_GetBack() (strong reference). The PyFrame_GetBack() function was added to Python 3.9 and pythoncapi_compat.h provides it on older Python versions. This project is related to my PEP 620 "Hide implementation details from the C API" which tries to make the C API more abstract to later allow to implement new optimization in CPython and to make other Python implementations like PyPy faster when running C extensions. This project only targets extension modules written in C by using directly the "Python.h" API. I advise you to use Cython or HPy to no longer be bothered with incompatible C API changes at every Python release ;-) * https://cython.org/ * https://hpy.readthedocs.io/ I hope that my script will facilitate migration of C extensions to HPy. Victor -- Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.

2 2

How can we make Python's C-API more friendly for non-C languages?
by Petr Viktorin 06 May '22

06 May '22

In my [C API strategy draft], there wasn't much opposition to the goal of being “easily usable from non-C languages”. But it's clear that as CPython devs we don't have that much relevant experience with those languages. I would like to ask developers of Python bindings, FFIs and alternate C-API implementations for thoughts, suggestions, and pain points to help guide the future of the C-API. I'll collect thoughts in this Google document, though I'm happy to discuss anywhere else: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fDfF7JanOEyQ9awhKE87-Ajp3H4k7qXL3cmyzPM… I've already asked: - PyPy/cpyext: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/pypy-dev@python.org/thread/44IO4GHWBE… - PyO3 (Rust): https://github.com/PyO3/pyo3/discussions/2346 - nanobind (C++): https://github.com/wjakob/nanobind/discussions/31 If you know more, please let them (or me) know! [C API strategy draft]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lrvx-ujHOCuiuqH71L1-nBQFHreI8jsXC966AFu…

5 4