gh-149965: use ptr_wise_atomic_memmove within element_ass_subscr#151271
Open
clin1234 wants to merge 19 commits into
Open
gh-149965: use ptr_wise_atomic_memmove within element_ass_subscr#151271clin1234 wants to merge 19 commits into
ptr_wise_atomic_memmove within element_ass_subscr#151271clin1234 wants to merge 19 commits into
Conversation
…FW3ZD.rst Co-authored-by: Sergey Miryanov <sergey.miryanov@gmail.com>
…ternal helper and add unit tests Extract the duplicated static `ptr_wise_atomic_memmove` from `Modules/_elementtree.c` and `Objects/listobject.c` into a shared `static inline _Py_ptr_wise_atomic_memmove(PyObject *a, ...)` in `Include/internal/pycore_object.h`. The first parameter is generalised from a type-specific pointer to `PyObject *` since only `PyObject *`- level operations (`_Py_IsOwnedByCurrentThread`, `_PyObject_GC_IS_SHARED`) were ever performed on it. `listobject.c` previously embedded `_Py_CRITICAL_SECTION_ASSERT_OBJECT_LOCKED` inside the local helper. That assertion is preserved by moving it explicitly to each of the four call sites in `listobject.c` (which are all called under a critical section). `_elementtree.c`'s open question about whether a critical section is needed remains unanswered, so no assertion is added there. Unit tests are added in `Modules/_testinternalcapi/test_ptr_wise_memmove.c` covering: dest < src (forward copy), dest > src (backward copy), dest == src (no-op), overlapping ranges, and the single-owner fast path. The single-owner test explicitly clears the GC SHARED bit to guard against freelist reuse leaving the bit set from a sibling test. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Commented out critical section assertion for ElementObject.
…e-149965.edk2ut.rst
This reverts commit a3a7eee.
clin1234
changed the title
ptr_wise_atomic_memmove use within element_ass_subscrptr_wise_atomic_memmove within element_ass_subscr
Contributor
Author
|
@ZeroIntensity, I've reverted the header change and unit test additions, so my current PR is focused on only one file. |
Member
|
I think you misunderstood what I meant. You can move the function to a header (and in fact, you should, because otherwise we're duplicating code), but it was weird to do it in its own PR. Just combine this PR with #151255 and it'll be fine. |
clin1234
requested review from
a team,
AA-Turner,
emmatyping,
erlend-aasland and
itamaro
as code owners
Contributor
Author
|
@ZeroIntensity, mind taking a look again? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See also capi-workgroup/decisions#106