[New-bugs-announce] [issue45306] Docs are incorrect re: constant initialization in the C99 standard
report at bugs.python.org
Mon Sep 27 20:24:44 EDT 2021
New submission from Josh Haberman <jhaberman at gmail.com>:
I believe the following excerpt from the docs is incorrect (https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/typeobj.html#c.PyTypeObject.tp_base):
> Slot initialization is subject to the rules of initializing
> globals. C99 requires the initializers to be “address
> constants”. Function designators like PyType_GenericNew(),
> with implicit conversion to a pointer, are valid C99 address
> However, the unary ‘&’ operator applied to a non-static
> variable like PyBaseObject_Type() is not required to produce
> an address constant. Compilers may support this (gcc does),
> MSVC does not. Both compilers are strictly standard
> conforming in this particular behavior.
> Consequently, tp_base should be set in the extension module’s init function.
I explained why in https://firstname.lastname@example.org/thread/2WUFTVQA7SLEDEDYSRJ75XFIR3EUTKKO/ and on https://bugs.python.org/msg402738.
The short version: &foo is an "address constant" according to the standard whenever "foo" has static storage duration. Variables declared "extern" have static storage duration. Therefore strictly conforming implementations should accept &PyBaseObject_Type as a valid constant initializer.
I believe the text above could be replaced by something like:
> MSVC does not support constant initialization of of an address
> that comes from another DLL, so extensions should be set in the
> extension module's init function.
assignee: docs at python
nosy: docs at python, jhaberman
title: Docs are incorrect re: constant initialization in the C99 standard
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
More information about the New-bugs-announce