On 12.02.16 15:43, Georg Brandl wrote: > On 02/12/2016 10:45 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: >> Sorry to bringing this up again. I was hoping we were done with that. >> >> When discussing the name of the Py_SETREF macro I was supposed to add a >> pair of macros: for Py_DECREF and Py_XDECREF. But I got a lot of >> opinions to be limited to only one macro. >> >> There was no (besides my) clearly expressed vote for two macros. > > I would have voted in favor. > > Spelling the SETREF out, as Nick proposes, kind of defies the purpose of > the macro: it's not strictly a convenience macro, it helps prevent > refcounting bugs. > >> As a result I have replaced both Py_DECREF and Py_XDECREF with the macro >> that always uses Py_XDECREF. > > Can you roughly say which fraction of replacements changed DECREF to an > implicit XDECREF? Changesets c4e8751ce637, bc7c56a225de, 539ba7267701, b02d256b8827, 1118dfcbcc35. Rough estimation: Py_DECREF - 62 Py_XDECREF - 57 Py_CLEAR - 46 Total statistic of using macros in current code: Py_SETREF 174 2.5% Py_CLEAR 781 11% Py_XDECREF 1443 20.5% Py_DECREF 4631 66%
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4