This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | amaury.forgeotdarc, barry, donmez, giampaolo.rodola, gpolo, loewis, pitrou |
| Date | 2008年07月25日.09:16:04 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.00046450133 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1216977371.14.0.264260457721.issue3139@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I haven't yet studied the patch in detail but I have a few questions: (1) are you sure it is safe not to INCREF the obj pointer in the Py_buffer? in the cases handled by your patch we still hold a reference to the original args tuple and dict before calling PyBuffer_Release(), but some functions may want to store the Py_buffer object somewhere to re-use it later. It would seem more logical for PyBuffer_FillInfo to INCREF the obj, and for PyBuffer_Release to DECREF it and set it to NULL. (2) is it necessary to call directly bf_getbuffer & the like or is there a higher-level API to do it? (3) didn't you forget to convert "PyArg_ParseTuple(args, "s#iO:sendto", [...])" in sock_sendto? (4) is it really necessary to do a special case with PyString_Check() rather than rely on the string type's getbuffer method? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年07月25日 09:16:11 | pitrou | set | spambayes_score: 0.000464501 -> 0.00046450133 recipients: + pitrou, loewis, barry, amaury.forgeotdarc, giampaolo.rodola, donmez, gpolo |
| 2008年07月25日 09:16:11 | pitrou | set | spambayes_score: 0.000464501 -> 0.000464501 messageid: <1216977371.14.0.264260457721.issue3139@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年07月25日 09:16:07 | pitrou | link | issue3139 messages |
| 2008年07月25日 09:16:05 | pitrou | create | |