Message411996
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
JunyiXie, KubaO, eric.snow, h-vetinari, mloskot, pablogsal, rhettinger, vstinner |
| Date |
2022年01月28日.13:50:38 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1643377838.35.0.103294375343.issue39511@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> On such platforms, the `PyGet_Foo` API can be on equal footing with the legacy `Py_Foo` statics, i.e. both would do the same thing. That's how I've done it in my experiment. The obvious problem is that on platforms without compiler support for TLS, `Py_Foo` would be unavailable, and that's probably a no-go for an API that wouldn't be deprecated.
My GH-18301 PR uses "#define Py_None Py_GetNone()" which is backward compatible in terms of API.
Py_GetNone() can have various implementations, it doesn't matter at the API level. |
|