On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 3:12 PM Neil Schemenauer <nas-python at arctrix.com> wrote: > Also, the extension module should not take a big performance hit. > So, you can't change all APIs that were macros into non-inlined > functions. People are not going to accept that and rightly so. > However, it could be that we introduce a new ifdef like > Py_LIMITED_API that gives a stable ABI. E.g. when that's enabled, > most everything would turn into non-inline functions. In exchange > for the performance hit, your extension would become ABI compatible > between a range of CPython releases. That would be a nice feature. > Basically a more useful version of Py_LIMITED_API. It seems like a lot of the things being talked about here actually *are* features of Py_LIMITED_API. E.g. it does a lot of work to hide the internal layout of PyTypeObject, and of course the whole selling point is that it's stable across multiple Python versions. If that's the kind of ABI you're looking for, then it seems like you should investigate (a) whether you can make Py_LIMITED_API *be* that API, instead of having two different ifdefs, (b) why no popular extension modules actually use Py_LIMITED_API. I'm guessing it's partly due to limits of the API, but also things like: lack of docs and examples, lack of py2 support, ... -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
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