Hi,
Is it ok to add a static inline function to the limited API? Can it cause ABI issue? Or is it safer to add a regular function? For example, is it safe to add the following function to the limited API?
static inline PyObject * _PyObject_CallOneArg(PyObject *func, PyObject *arg) { ... return _PyObject_VectorcallTstate(tstate, func, args, nargsf, NULL); }
Or should it be an opaque definition like the following function?
PyAPI_FUNC(PyObject *) PyObject_CallNoArgs(PyObject *func);
I came to this question while reviewing "Make Vectorcall public" C API:
https://bugs.python.org/issue39245 https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17893
Victor
Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi, Is it ok to add a static inline function to the limited API? Can it cause ABI issue? Or is it safer to add a regular function? For example, is it safe to add the following function to the limited API? static inline PyObject _PyObject_CallOneArg(PyObject func, PyObject *arg) { ... return _PyObject_VectorcallTstate(tstate, func, args, nargsf, NULL); } Or should it be an opaque definition like the following function? PyAPI_FUNC(PyObject ) PyObject_CallNoArgs(PyObject func);
Yes, it should need the opaque definition. Otherwise we'd need to ensure ABI compatibility for _PyObject_VectorcallTstate and we would need to support the exact definition of the static inline function "forever".
I came to this question while reviewing "Make Vectorcall public" C API: https://bugs.python.org/issue39245 https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17893
Just to clarify, that PR does not propose adding things to the limited API.
-
encukou＠gmail.com -
Victor Stinner