RetroSearch Browse

Sun Feb 7 03:22:37 EST 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-February/143139.html

M.-A. Lemburg schrieb am 04.02.2016 um 13:54:
> On 04.02.2016 13:29, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> But, why not PyObject_Malloc() & PObject_Free() were not used in the
>> first place?
> 
> Good question. I guess developers simply thought of PyObject_Malloc()
> being for PyObjects, not arbitrary memory buffers, most likely
> because pymalloc was advertised as allocator for Python objects,
> not random chunks of memory.

Note that the PyObject_Malloc() functions have never been documented.
(Well, there are references regarding their mere existence in the docs, but
nothing more than that.)

https://docs.python.org/3.6/search.html?q=pyobject_malloc&check_keywords=yes&area=default

And, for example, the "what's new in 2.5" document says:

"""
Python’s API has many different functions for allocating memory that are
grouped into families. For example, PyMem_Malloc(), PyMem_Realloc(), and
PyMem_Free() are one family that allocates raw memory, while
PyObject_Malloc(), PyObject_Realloc(), and PyObject_Free() are another
family that’s supposed to be used for creating Python objects.
"""

I don't think there are many extensions out there in which *object* memory
gets allocated manually, which implicitly puts a pretty clear "don't use"
marker on these functions.

Stefan

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-February/143139.html below:

[Python-Dev] Modify PyMem_Malloc to use pymalloc for performance