Message95963
> Why do you say that:
>
> > There is no feasible way the bf_releasebuffer can keep track of how
> > many calls to it have been made.
I was probably thinking about allocating new temporary arrays for
strides etc. on each *_getbuffer -- if that's done, then manually
keeping track of all the allocated memory seems like a waste of effort
(ie. not feasible).
But yes, if memory allocated for entries in Py_buffer is shared between
all exported buffer views, that sounds better -- for some reason I
didn't think about that... So we'll do it like this in Numpy then.
But still, I take it that the way it currently works is not the intended
behavior? The segmentation faults caused by this came as a bit of a
surprise to me, as the assumption about paired *_getbuffer and
*_releasebuffer calls is very natural. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-12-04 13:56:42 | pv | set | recipients:
+ pv, pitrou |
2009-12-04 13:56:42 | pv | set | messageid: <1259935002.25.0.606018544398.issue7433@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2009-12-04 13:56:40 | pv | link | issue7433 messages |
2009-12-04 13:56:40 | pv | create | |
|