Sorry, but I don't understand this proposal. What do you mean by "returned to Python"?
Passing values from C to Python, is what I meant. The stack exists to handle this case.
Calling a C function is not a special case. It's the oposite: calling a Python function is done by calling a C funtion (one of https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/call.html#object-calling-api or their private variants).
I know this and was thinking the stack could be used for the C part to ease other things related to GC.
Given to what?
To C, the full sentence reads as below:
Where now PyObject becomes an index into an internal array that stores all values that had to be given to C.
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 9:14 AM Petr Viktorin <encukou@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08. 06. 21 13:08, Joannah Nanjekye wrote:
Hey all,
For my research, IBM wrote a tracing GC for CPython and I was trying out some ideas on how we would support the CAPI.
I know about handles used in HPy but I felt they can actually incur allocation overhead and use more memory.
Instead, I thought of changing the semantics of the union type (PyObject) to not point to internal structures and use a stack for sharing data between Python and C. There can be one push function for each Python type with a direct representation in C: Py_pushInteger for ints, etc. When a C function returns, all values in the stack are returned to Python as the results of the C function. Assuming we can have a way of returning multiple values in Python.
Sorry, but I don't understand this proposal. What do you mean by "returned to Python"?
Calling a C function is not a special case. It's the oposite: calling a Python function is done by calling a C funtion (one of https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/call.html#object-calling-api or their private variants).
Specifically, change
typedef struct Object *PyObject;
To:
typedef unsigned int PyObject;
Where now PyObject becomes an index into an internal array that stored all values that had to be given to.
Given to what?
This means that when a value is in that array, it would not be collected by Python. When the C function returns its whole array is erased, and the values used by the function are collected.
This setup gets us a reliable Union type (PyObject), the garbage
collector > can also move objects. I think that backward compatibility can easily be > implemented using macros. > > What is some feedback on this approach and am I overconfident of having > reasonable backward compatibility? Also, can this experiment uncover any > insights that CPython would find useful?
capi-sig mailing list -- capi-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to capi-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/capi-sig.python.org/ Member address: nanjekyejoannah@gmail.com
-- Best, Joannah Nanjekye
*"You think you know when you learn, are more sure when you can write, even more when you can teach, but certain when you can program." Alan J. Perlis*