Message109113
> 1. The use case is any C extension that may need to run non-trivial
> code when being deleted, but where this can not be statically known.
tp_del is IMO a bad place to do it. I'd recommend tp_dealloc instead,
precisely so that you don't end up with uncollectable objects tied to
internal OS structures or other non-trivial resources.
(also, tp_del seems to have problems with subclassing. I don't remember
the specifics)
> 3. This code is only invoked for garbage deemed collectable. As such
> it is not on any critical path, most gc collections don't actually
> find any garbage. The cost of a few extra indirect function calls is
> likely to drown in the memory allocator overhead when the objects are
> released.
Ok. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-07-02 14:04:51 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, tim.peters, kristjan.jonsson |
2010-07-02 14:04:50 | pitrou | link | issue9141 messages |
2010-07-02 14:04:49 | pitrou | create | |
|