On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:45 AM Laszlo Ersek
<lersek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/23 17:52, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 03:09:02PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>>> - Py_BuildValue with the "O" format specifier transfers the new
list's
>>> *sole* reference (= ownership) to the just-built higher-level object
"args"
>>
>> Reference transfer is done with "N", not "O". That would be
an
>> alternative to decreasing the refcount of py_array on success, but not
>> eliminate the need to decrease the refcount on Py_BuildValue failure.
>>
>>>
>>> - when "args" is killed (decref'd), it takes care of
"py_array".
>>>
>>> Consequently, if Py_BuildValue fails, "py_array" continues owning
the
>>> new list -- and I believe that, if we take the new error branch, we leak
>>> the object pointed-to by "py_array". Is that the case?
>>
>> Not quite. "O" is different than "N".
>
> I agree with you *now*, looking up the "O" specification at
> <
https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/arg.html#building-values>.
>
> However, when I was writing my email, I looked up Py_BuildValue at that
> time as well, just elsewhere. I don't know where. Really. And then that
> documentation said that the reference count would *not* be increased. I
> distinctly remember that, because it surprised me -- I actually recalled
> an *even earlier* experience reading the documentation, which had again
> stated that "O" would increase the reference count.
Maybe here:
https://docs.python.org/2/c-api/arg.html#building-values
Looks like another incompatibility between python 2 and 3.
Yes, thank you! That's it *exactly*!
O (object) [PyObject *]
Store a Python object (without any conversion) in a C object
pointer. The C program thus receives the actual object that was
passed. The object’s reference count is not increased. The pointer
stored is not NULL.
Laszlo