Author stutzbach
Recipients gvanrossum, lemburg, loewis, r.david.murray, scoder, stutzbach, vstinner, zooko
Date 2010-05-08.15:48:38
SpamBayes Score 0.000556777
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <m2reae285401005080848r8c64cb57m2b74b3001cbf1f06@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <4BE58035.9040604@egenix.com>
Content
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Marc-Andre Lemburg
<report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> Are you sure this doesn't get optimized away in practice ?

I'm sure it doesn't get optimized away by gcc 4.3, where I tested it. :)

> Sure, though, I don't see how this relates to C code relying
> on these details, e.g. a C extension will probably use different
> conversion code depending on whether UCS2 or UCS4 is compatible
> with some external library, etc.

Can you give an example?

All of the examples I can think of either:
- poke into PyUnicodeObject's internals,
- call a Python function that exposes Py_UNICODE or PyUnicodeObject

I'm explicitly trying to protect those two cases.  It's quite possible
that I'm missing something, but I can't think of any other unsafe way
for a C extension to convert a Python Unicode object to a byte string.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-05-08 15:48:40stutzbachsetrecipients: + stutzbach, lemburg, gvanrossum, loewis, zooko, scoder, vstinner, r.david.murray
2010-05-08 15:48:38stutzbachlinkissue8654 messages
2010-05-08 15:48:38stutzbachcreate