cpython/Objects/object.c

1564 lines
34 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

1991-02-19 20:39:46 +08:00
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
/* Generic object operations; and implementation of None (NoObject) */
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
#include "Python.h"
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
#ifdef macintosh
#include "macglue.h"
#endif
/* just for trashcan: */
#include "compile.h"
#include "frameobject.h"
#include "traceback.h"
1995-03-30 00:57:48 +08:00
#if defined( Py_TRACE_REFS ) || defined( Py_REF_DEBUG )
DL_IMPORT(long) _Py_RefTotal;
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
#endif
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
/* Object allocation routines used by NEWOBJ and NEWVAROBJ macros.
These are used by the individual routines for object creation.
Do not call them otherwise, they do not initialize the object! */
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
#ifdef COUNT_ALLOCS
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
static PyTypeObject *type_list;
extern int tuple_zero_allocs, fast_tuple_allocs;
extern int quick_int_allocs, quick_neg_int_allocs;
extern int null_strings, one_strings;
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
dump_counts(void)
{
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyTypeObject *tp;
for (tp = type_list; tp; tp = tp->tp_next)
fprintf(stderr, "%s alloc'd: %d, freed: %d, max in use: %d\n",
tp->tp_name, tp->tp_alloc, tp->tp_free,
tp->tp_maxalloc);
fprintf(stderr, "fast tuple allocs: %d, empty: %d\n",
fast_tuple_allocs, tuple_zero_allocs);
fprintf(stderr, "fast int allocs: pos: %d, neg: %d\n",
quick_int_allocs, quick_neg_int_allocs);
fprintf(stderr, "null strings: %d, 1-strings: %d\n",
null_strings, one_strings);
}
PyObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
get_counts(void)
{
PyTypeObject *tp;
PyObject *result;
PyObject *v;
result = PyList_New(0);
if (result == NULL)
return NULL;
for (tp = type_list; tp; tp = tp->tp_next) {
v = Py_BuildValue("(siii)", tp->tp_name, tp->tp_alloc,
tp->tp_free, tp->tp_maxalloc);
if (v == NULL) {
Py_DECREF(result);
return NULL;
}
if (PyList_Append(result, v) < 0) {
Py_DECREF(v);
Py_DECREF(result);
return NULL;
}
Py_DECREF(v);
}
return result;
}
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
inc_count(PyTypeObject *tp)
{
if (tp->tp_alloc == 0) {
1995-04-06 22:46:26 +08:00
/* first time; insert in linked list */
if (tp->tp_next != NULL) /* sanity check */
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
Py_FatalError("XXX inc_count sanity check");
tp->tp_next = type_list;
type_list = tp;
}
tp->tp_alloc++;
if (tp->tp_alloc - tp->tp_free > tp->tp_maxalloc)
tp->tp_maxalloc = tp->tp_alloc - tp->tp_free;
}
#endif
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_Init(PyObject *op, PyTypeObject *tp)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
{
if (op == NULL) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_SystemError,
"NULL object passed to PyObject_Init");
return op;
}
#ifdef WITH_CYCLE_GC
if (PyType_IS_GC(tp))
op = (PyObject *) PyObject_FROM_GC(op);
#endif
/* Any changes should be reflected in PyObject_INIT (objimpl.h) */
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
op->ob_type = tp;
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
_Py_NewReference(op);
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
return op;
}
PyVarObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_InitVar(PyVarObject *op, PyTypeObject *tp, int size)
{
if (op == NULL) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_SystemError,
"NULL object passed to PyObject_InitVar");
return op;
}
#ifdef WITH_CYCLE_GC
if (PyType_IS_GC(tp))
op = (PyVarObject *) PyObject_FROM_GC(op);
#endif
/* Any changes should be reflected in PyObject_INIT_VAR */
op->ob_size = size;
op->ob_type = tp;
_Py_NewReference((PyObject *)op);
return op;
}
PyObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_PyObject_New(PyTypeObject *tp)
{
PyObject *op;
op = (PyObject *) PyObject_MALLOC(_PyObject_SIZE(tp));
if (op == NULL)
return PyErr_NoMemory();
#ifdef WITH_CYCLE_GC
if (PyType_IS_GC(tp))
op = (PyObject *) PyObject_FROM_GC(op);
#endif
return PyObject_INIT(op, tp);
}
PyVarObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_PyObject_NewVar(PyTypeObject *tp, int size)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
{
PyVarObject *op;
op = (PyVarObject *) PyObject_MALLOC(_PyObject_VAR_SIZE(tp, size));
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
if (op == NULL)
return (PyVarObject *)PyErr_NoMemory();
#ifdef WITH_CYCLE_GC
if (PyType_IS_GC(tp))
op = (PyVarObject *) PyObject_FROM_GC(op);
#endif
return PyObject_INIT_VAR(op, tp, size);
}
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_PyObject_Del(PyObject *op)
{
#ifdef WITH_CYCLE_GC
2000-07-01 09:00:38 +08:00
if (op && PyType_IS_GC(op->ob_type)) {
op = (PyObject *) PyObject_AS_GC(op);
}
2000-07-01 09:00:38 +08:00
#endif
PyObject_FREE(op);
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
}
#ifndef WITH_CYCLE_GC
/* extension modules might need these */
void _PyGC_Insert(PyObject *op) { }
void _PyGC_Remove(PyObject *op) { }
#endif
1991-06-08 01:10:43 +09:00
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_Print(PyObject *op, FILE *fp, int flags)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
{
int ret = 0;
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
if (PyErr_CheckSignals())
1991-06-08 01:10:43 +09:00
return -1;
#ifdef USE_STACKCHECK
if (PyOS_CheckStack()) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_MemoryError, "stack overflow");
return -1;
}
#endif
clearerr(fp); /* Clear any previous error condition */
1991-06-08 01:10:43 +09:00
if (op == NULL) {
fprintf(fp, "<nil>");
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
}
1991-06-08 01:10:43 +09:00
else {
if (op->ob_refcnt <= 0)
fprintf(fp, "<refcnt %u at %p>",
op->ob_refcnt, op);
else if (op->ob_type->tp_print == NULL) {
if (op->ob_type->tp_repr == NULL) {
fprintf(fp, "<%s object at %p>",
op->ob_type->tp_name, op);
}
else {
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *s;
if (flags & Py_PRINT_RAW)
s = PyObject_Str(op);
else
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
s = PyObject_Repr(op);
if (s == NULL)
ret = -1;
else {
ret = PyObject_Print(s, fp,
Py_PRINT_RAW);
}
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
Py_XDECREF(s);
}
}
1991-06-08 01:10:43 +09:00
else
ret = (*op->ob_type->tp_print)(op, fp, flags);
1991-06-08 01:10:43 +09:00
}
if (ret == 0) {
if (ferror(fp)) {
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyErr_SetFromErrno(PyExc_IOError);
clearerr(fp);
ret = -1;
}
}
return ret;
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
}
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_Repr(PyObject *v)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
{
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
if (PyErr_CheckSignals())
1991-06-08 01:10:43 +09:00
return NULL;
#ifdef USE_STACKCHECK
if (PyOS_CheckStack()) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_MemoryError, "stack overflow");
return NULL;
}
#endif
1991-06-08 01:10:43 +09:00
if (v == NULL)
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
return PyString_FromString("<NULL>");
1991-06-08 01:10:43 +09:00
else if (v->ob_type->tp_repr == NULL) {
char buf[120];
sprintf(buf, "<%.80s object at %p>",
v->ob_type->tp_name, v);
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
return PyString_FromString(buf);
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
}
else {
PyObject *res;
res = (*v->ob_type->tp_repr)(v);
if (res == NULL)
return NULL;
if (PyUnicode_Check(res)) {
PyObject* str;
str = PyUnicode_AsUnicodeEscapeString(res);
Py_DECREF(res);
if (str)
res = str;
else
return NULL;
}
if (!PyString_Check(res)) {
PyErr_Format(PyExc_TypeError,
"__repr__ returned non-string (type %.200s)",
res->ob_type->tp_name);
Py_DECREF(res);
return NULL;
}
return res;
}
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
}
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_Str(PyObject *v)
{
PyObject *res;
if (v == NULL)
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
return PyString_FromString("<NULL>");
else if (PyString_Check(v)) {
Py_INCREF(v);
return v;
}
1995-01-18 00:35:13 +08:00
else if (v->ob_type->tp_str != NULL)
res = (*v->ob_type->tp_str)(v);
else {
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *func;
if (!PyInstance_Check(v) ||
(func = PyObject_GetAttrString(v, "__str__")) == NULL) {
PyErr_Clear();
return PyObject_Repr(v);
}
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
res = PyEval_CallObject(func, (PyObject *)NULL);
Py_DECREF(func);
}
if (res == NULL)
return NULL;
if (PyUnicode_Check(res)) {
PyObject* str;
str = PyUnicode_AsEncodedString(res, NULL, NULL);
Py_DECREF(res);
if (str)
res = str;
else
return NULL;
}
if (!PyString_Check(res)) {
PyErr_Format(PyExc_TypeError,
"__str__ returned non-string (type %.200s)",
res->ob_type->tp_name);
Py_DECREF(res);
return NULL;
}
return res;
}
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
PyObject *
PyObject_Unicode(PyObject *v)
{
PyObject *res;
if (v == NULL)
res = PyString_FromString("<NULL>");
else if (PyUnicode_Check(v)) {
Py_INCREF(v);
return v;
}
else if (PyString_Check(v))
res = v;
else if (v->ob_type->tp_str != NULL)
res = (*v->ob_type->tp_str)(v);
else {
PyObject *func;
static PyObject *strstr;
if (strstr == NULL) {
strstr= PyString_InternFromString("__str__");
if (strstr == NULL)
return NULL;
}
if (!PyInstance_Check(v) ||
(func = PyObject_GetAttr(v, strstr)) == NULL) {
PyErr_Clear();
res = PyObject_Repr(v);
}
else {
res = PyEval_CallObject(func, (PyObject *)NULL);
Py_DECREF(func);
}
}
if (res == NULL)
return NULL;
if (!PyUnicode_Check(res)) {
PyObject* str;
str = PyUnicode_FromObject(res);
Py_DECREF(res);
if (str)
res = str;
else
return NULL;
}
return res;
}
/* Map rich comparison operators to their swapped version, e.g. LT --> GT */
static int swapped_op[] = {Py_GT, Py_GE, Py_EQ, Py_NE, Py_LT, Py_LE};
/* Try a genuine rich comparison, returning an object. Return:
NULL for exception;
NotImplemented if this particular rich comparison is not implemented or
undefined;
some object not equal to NotImplemented if it is implemented
(this latter object may not be a Boolean).
*/
static PyObject *
try_rich_compare(PyObject *v, PyObject *w, int op)
{
richcmpfunc f;
PyObject *res;
if ((f = v->ob_type->tp_richcompare) != NULL) {
res = (*f)(v, w, op);
if (res != Py_NotImplemented)
return res;
Py_DECREF(res);
}
if ((f = w->ob_type->tp_richcompare) != NULL) {
return (*f)(w, v, swapped_op[op]);
}
res = Py_NotImplemented;
Py_INCREF(res);
return res;
}
/* Try a genuine rich comparison, returning an int. Return:
-1 for exception (including the case where try_rich_compare() returns an
object that's not a Boolean);
0 if the outcome is false;
1 if the outcome is true;
2 if this particular rich comparison is not implemented or undefined.
*/
static int
try_rich_compare_bool(PyObject *v, PyObject *w, int op)
{
PyObject *res;
int ok;
if (v->ob_type->tp_richcompare == NULL &&
w->ob_type->tp_richcompare == NULL)
return 2; /* Shortcut, avoid INCREF+DECREF */
res = try_rich_compare(v, w, op);
if (res == NULL)
return -1;
if (res == Py_NotImplemented) {
Py_DECREF(res);
return 2;
}
ok = PyObject_IsTrue(res);
Py_DECREF(res);
return ok;
}
/* Try rich comparisons to determine a 3-way comparison. Return:
-2 for an exception;
-1 if v < w;
0 if v == w;
1 if v > w;
2 if this particular rich comparison is not implemented or undefined.
*/
static int
try_rich_to_3way_compare(PyObject *v, PyObject *w)
{
static struct { int op; int outcome; } tries[3] = {
/* Try this operator, and if it is true, use this outcome: */
{Py_EQ, 0},
{Py_LT, -1},
{Py_GT, 1},
};
int i;
if (v->ob_type->tp_richcompare == NULL &&
w->ob_type->tp_richcompare == NULL)
return 2; /* Shortcut */
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
switch (try_rich_compare_bool(v, w, tries[i].op)) {
case -1:
return -1;
case 1:
return tries[i].outcome;
}
}
return 2;
}
/* Try a 3-way comparison, returning an int. Return:
-2 for an exception;
-1 if v < w;
0 if v == w;
1 if v > w;
2 if this particular 3-way comparison is not implemented or undefined.
*/
static int
try_3way_compare(PyObject *v, PyObject *w)
{
int c;
cmpfunc f;
/* Comparisons involving instances are given to instance_compare,
which has the same return conventions as this function. */
if (PyInstance_Check(v))
return (*v->ob_type->tp_compare)(v, w);
if (PyInstance_Check(w))
return (*w->ob_type->tp_compare)(v, w);
/* If the types are equal, don't bother with coercions etc. */
if (v->ob_type == w->ob_type) {
if ((f = v->ob_type->tp_compare) == NULL)
return 2;
c = (*f)(v, w);
if (PyErr_Occurred())
return -2;
return c < 0 ? -1 : c > 0 ? 1 : 0;
}
/* Try coercion; if it fails, give up */
c = PyNumber_CoerceEx(&v, &w);
if (c < 0)
return -2;
if (c > 0)
return 2;
/* Try v's comparison, if defined */
if ((f = v->ob_type->tp_compare) != NULL) {
c = (*f)(v, w);
Py_DECREF(v);
Py_DECREF(w);
if (PyErr_Occurred())
return -2;
return c < 0 ? -1 : c > 0 ? 1 : 0;
}
/* Try w's comparison, if defined */
if ((f = w->ob_type->tp_compare) != NULL) {
c = (*f)(w, v); /* swapped! */
Py_DECREF(v);
Py_DECREF(w);
if (PyErr_Occurred())
return -2;
return c < 0 ? 1 : c > 0 ? -1 : 0; /* negated! */
}
/* No comparison defined */
Py_DECREF(v);
Py_DECREF(w);
return 2;
}
/* Final fallback 3-way comparison, returning an int. Return:
-2 if an error occurred;
-1 if v < w;
0 if v == w;
1 if v > w.
*/
static int
default_3way_compare(PyObject *v, PyObject *w)
{
int c;
if (v->ob_type == w->ob_type) {
/* same type: compare pointers */
Py_uintptr_t vv = (Py_uintptr_t)v;
Py_uintptr_t ww = (Py_uintptr_t)w;
return (vv < ww) ? -1 : (vv > ww) ? 1 : 0;
}
/* Special case for Unicode */
if (PyUnicode_Check(v) || PyUnicode_Check(w)) {
c = PyUnicode_Compare(v, w);
if (!PyErr_Occurred())
return c;
/* TypeErrors are ignored: if Unicode coercion fails due
to one of the arguments not having the right type, we
continue as defined by the coercion protocol (see
above). Luckily, decoding errors are reported as
ValueErrors and are not masked by this technique. */
if (!PyErr_ExceptionMatches(PyExc_TypeError))
return -2;
PyErr_Clear();
}
/* different type: compare type names */
c = strcmp(v->ob_type->tp_name, w->ob_type->tp_name);
return (c < 0) ? -1 : (c > 0) ? 1 : 0;
}
#define CHECK_TYPES(o) PyType_HasFeature((o)->ob_type, Py_TPFLAGS_CHECKTYPES)
static int
do_cmp(PyObject *v, PyObject *w)
{
int c;
c = try_rich_to_3way_compare(v, w);
if (c < 2)
return c;
c = try_3way_compare(v, w);
if (c < 2)
return c;
return default_3way_compare(v, w);
}
/* compare_nesting is incremented before calling compare (for
some types) and decremented on exit. If the count exceeds the
nesting limit, enable code to detect circular data structures.
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
This is a tunable parameter that should only affect the performance
of comparisons, nothing else. Setting it high makes comparing deeply
nested non-cyclical data structures faster, but makes comparing cyclical
data structures slower.
*/
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
#define NESTING_LIMIT 20
static int compare_nesting = 0;
static PyObject*
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
get_inprogress_dict(void)
{
static PyObject *key;
PyObject *tstate_dict, *inprogress;
if (key == NULL) {
key = PyString_InternFromString("cmp_state");
if (key == NULL)
return NULL;
}
tstate_dict = PyThreadState_GetDict();
if (tstate_dict == NULL) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return NULL;
}
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
inprogress = PyDict_GetItem(tstate_dict, key);
if (inprogress == NULL) {
inprogress = PyDict_New();
if (inprogress == NULL)
return NULL;
if (PyDict_SetItem(tstate_dict, key, inprogress) == -1) {
Py_DECREF(inprogress);
return NULL;
}
Py_DECREF(inprogress);
}
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
return inprogress;
}
static PyObject *
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
check_recursion(PyObject *v, PyObject *w, int op)
{
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
PyObject *inprogress;
PyObject *token;
Py_uintptr_t iv = (Py_uintptr_t)v;
Py_uintptr_t iw = (Py_uintptr_t)w;
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
PyObject *x, *y, *z;
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
inprogress = get_inprogress_dict();
if (inprogress == NULL)
return NULL;
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
token = PyTuple_New(3);
if (token == NULL)
return NULL;
if (iv <= iw) {
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
PyTuple_SET_ITEM(token, 0, x = PyLong_FromVoidPtr((void *)v));
PyTuple_SET_ITEM(token, 1, y = PyLong_FromVoidPtr((void *)w));
if (op >= 0)
op = swapped_op[op];
} else {
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
PyTuple_SET_ITEM(token, 0, x = PyLong_FromVoidPtr((void *)w));
PyTuple_SET_ITEM(token, 1, y = PyLong_FromVoidPtr((void *)v));
}
PyTuple_SET_ITEM(token, 2, z = PyInt_FromLong((long)op));
if (x == NULL || y == NULL || z == NULL) {
Py_DECREF(token);
return NULL;
}
if (PyDict_GetItem(inprogress, token) != NULL) {
Py_DECREF(token);
return Py_None; /* Without INCREF! */
}
if (PyDict_SetItem(inprogress, token, token) < 0) {
Py_DECREF(token);
return NULL;
}
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
return token;
}
static void
delete_token(PyObject *token)
{
PyObject *inprogress;
if (token == NULL || token == Py_None)
return;
inprogress = get_inprogress_dict();
if (inprogress == NULL)
PyErr_Clear();
else
PyDict_DelItem(inprogress, token);
Py_DECREF(token);
}
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_Compare(PyObject *v, PyObject *w)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
{
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
PyTypeObject *vtp;
int result;
#if defined(USE_STACKCHECK)
if (PyOS_CheckStack()) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_MemoryError, "Stack overflow");
return -1;
}
#endif
if (v == NULL || w == NULL) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return -1;
}
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
if (v == w)
return 0;
vtp = v->ob_type;
compare_nesting++;
if (compare_nesting > NESTING_LIMIT &&
(vtp->tp_as_mapping
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
|| (vtp->tp_as_sequence
&& !PyString_Check(v)
&& !PyTuple_Check(v)))) {
/* try to detect circular data structures */
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
PyObject *token = check_recursion(v, w, -1);
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
if (token == NULL) {
result = -1;
}
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
else if (token == Py_None) {
/* already comparing these objects. assume
they're equal until shown otherwise */
result = 0;
}
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
else {
result = do_cmp(v, w);
delete_token(token);
}
}
else {
result = do_cmp(v, w);
}
compare_nesting--;
return result < 0 ? -1 : result;
}
static PyObject *
try_3way_to_rich_compare(PyObject *v, PyObject *w, int op)
{
int c;
PyObject *result;
c = try_3way_compare(v, w);
if (c <= -2)
return NULL;
if (c >= 2)
c = default_3way_compare(v, w);
switch (op) {
case Py_LT: c = c < 0; break;
case Py_LE: c = c <= 0; break;
case Py_EQ: c = c == 0; break;
case Py_NE: c = c != 0; break;
case Py_GT: c = c > 0; break;
case Py_GE: c = c >= 0; break;
}
result = c ? Py_True : Py_False;
Py_INCREF(result);
return result;
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
}
PyObject *
do_richcmp(PyObject *v, PyObject *w, int op)
{
PyObject *res;
res = try_rich_compare(v, w, op);
if (res != Py_NotImplemented)
return res;
Py_DECREF(res);
return try_3way_to_rich_compare(v, w, op);
}
PyObject *
PyObject_RichCompare(PyObject *v, PyObject *w, int op)
{
PyObject *res;
assert(Py_LT <= op && op <= Py_GE);
compare_nesting++;
if (compare_nesting > NESTING_LIMIT &&
(v->ob_type->tp_as_mapping
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
|| (v->ob_type->tp_as_sequence
&& !PyString_Check(v)
&& !PyTuple_Check(v)))) {
/* try to detect circular data structures */
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
PyObject *token = check_recursion(v, w, op);
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
if (token == NULL) {
res = NULL;
}
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
else if (token == Py_None) {
/* already comparing these objects with this operator.
assume they're equal until shown otherwise */
if (op == Py_EQ)
res = Py_True;
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
else if (op == Py_NE)
res = Py_False;
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
else {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_ValueError,
"can't order recursive values");
res = NULL;
}
Py_XINCREF(res);
}
Changes to recursive-object comparisons, having to do with a test case I found where rich comparison of unequal recursive objects gave unintuituve results. In a discussion with Tim, where we discovered that our intuition on when a<=b should be true was failing, we decided to outlaw ordering comparisons on recursive objects. (Once we have fixed our intuition and designed a matching algorithm that's practical and reasonable to implement, we can allow such orderings again.) - Refactored the recursive-object comparison framework; more is now done in the support routines so less needs to be done in the calling routines (even at the expense of slowing it down a bit -- this should normally never be invoked, it's mostly just there to avoid blowing up the interpreter). - Changed the framework so that the comparison operator used is also stored. (The dictionary now stores triples (v, w, op) instead of pairs (v, w).) - Changed the nesting limit to a more reasonable small 20; this only slows down comparisons of very deeply nested objects (unlikely to occur in practice), while speeding up comparisons of recursive objects (previously, this would first waste time and space on 500 nested comparisons before it would start detecting recursion). - Changed rich comparisons for recursive objects to raise a ValueError exception when recursion is detected for ordering oprators (<, <=, >, >=). Unrelated change: - Moved PyObject_Unicode() to just under PyObject_Str(), where it belongs. MAL's patch must've inserted in a random spot between two functions in the file -- between two helpers for rich comparison...
2001-01-19 06:07:06 +08:00
else {
res = do_richcmp(v, w, op);
delete_token(token);
}
}
else {
res = do_richcmp(v, w, op);
}
compare_nesting--;
return res;
}
int
PyObject_RichCompareBool(PyObject *v, PyObject *w, int op)
{
PyObject *res = PyObject_RichCompare(v, w, op);
int ok;
if (res == NULL)
return -1;
ok = PyObject_IsTrue(res);
Py_DECREF(res);
return ok;
}
/* Set of hash utility functions to help maintaining the invariant that
iff a==b then hash(a)==hash(b)
All the utility functions (_Py_Hash*()) return "-1" to signify an error.
*/
long
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_Py_HashDouble(double v)
{
double intpart, fractpart;
int expo;
long hipart;
long x; /* the final hash value */
/* This is designed so that Python numbers of different types
* that compare equal hash to the same value; otherwise comparisons
* of mapping keys will turn out weird.
*/
#ifdef MPW /* MPW C modf expects pointer to extended as second argument */
{
extended e;
fractpart = modf(v, &e);
intpart = e;
}
#else
fractpart = modf(v, &intpart);
#endif
if (fractpart == 0.0) {
/* This must return the same hash as an equal int or long. */
if (intpart > LONG_MAX || -intpart > LONG_MAX) {
/* Convert to long and use its hash. */
PyObject *plong; /* converted to Python long */
if (Py_IS_INFINITY(intpart))
/* can't convert to long int -- arbitrary */
v = v < 0 ? -271828.0 : 314159.0;
plong = PyLong_FromDouble(v);
if (plong == NULL)
return -1;
x = PyObject_Hash(plong);
Py_DECREF(plong);
return x;
}
/* Fits in a C long == a Python int, so is its own hash. */
x = (long)intpart;
if (x == -1)
x = -2;
return x;
}
/* The fractional part is non-zero, so we don't have to worry about
* making this match the hash of some other type.
* Use frexp to get at the bits in the double.
* Since the VAX D double format has 56 mantissa bits, which is the
* most of any double format in use, each of these parts may have as
* many as (but no more than) 56 significant bits.
* So, assuming sizeof(long) >= 4, each part can be broken into two
* longs; frexp and multiplication are used to do that.
* Also, since the Cray double format has 15 exponent bits, which is
* the most of any double format in use, shifting the exponent field
* left by 15 won't overflow a long (again assuming sizeof(long) >= 4).
*/
v = frexp(v, &expo);
v *= 2147483648.0; /* 2**31 */
hipart = (long)v; /* take the top 32 bits */
v = (v - (double)hipart) * 2147483648.0; /* get the next 32 bits */
x = hipart + (long)v + (expo << 15);
if (x == -1)
x = -2;
return x;
}
long
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_Py_HashPointer(void *p)
{
#if SIZEOF_LONG >= SIZEOF_VOID_P
return (long)p;
#else
/* convert to a Python long and hash that */
PyObject* longobj;
long x;
if ((longobj = PyLong_FromVoidPtr(p)) == NULL) {
x = -1;
goto finally;
}
x = PyObject_Hash(longobj);
finally:
Py_XDECREF(longobj);
return x;
#endif
}
long
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_Hash(PyObject *v)
{
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyTypeObject *tp = v->ob_type;
if (tp->tp_hash != NULL)
return (*tp->tp_hash)(v);
if (tp->tp_compare == NULL && tp->tp_richcompare == NULL) {
return _Py_HashPointer(v); /* Use address as hash value */
}
/* If there's a cmp but no hash defined, the object can't be hashed */
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError, "unhashable type");
return -1;
}
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_GetAttrString(PyObject *v, char *name)
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
{
if (v->ob_type->tp_getattro != NULL) {
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *w, *res;
w = PyString_InternFromString(name);
if (w == NULL)
return NULL;
res = (*v->ob_type->tp_getattro)(v, w);
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
Py_XDECREF(w);
return res;
}
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
if (v->ob_type->tp_getattr == NULL) {
PyErr_Format(PyExc_AttributeError,
"'%.50s' object has no attribute '%.400s'",
v->ob_type->tp_name,
name);
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
return NULL;
}
else {
return (*v->ob_type->tp_getattr)(v, name);
}
}
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_HasAttrString(PyObject *v, char *name)
{
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *res = PyObject_GetAttrString(v, name);
if (res != NULL) {
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
Py_DECREF(res);
return 1;
}
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyErr_Clear();
return 0;
}
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_SetAttrString(PyObject *v, char *name, PyObject *w)
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
{
if (v->ob_type->tp_setattro != NULL) {
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *s;
int res;
s = PyString_InternFromString(name);
if (s == NULL)
return -1;
res = (*v->ob_type->tp_setattro)(v, s, w);
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
Py_XDECREF(s);
return res;
}
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
if (v->ob_type->tp_setattr == NULL) {
if (v->ob_type->tp_getattr == NULL)
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
"attribute-less object (assign or del)");
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
else
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
"object has read-only attributes");
1990-12-21 07:12:40 +08:00
return -1;
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
}
else {
return (*v->ob_type->tp_setattr)(v, name, w);
}
}
/* Internal API needed by PyObject_GetAttr(): */
extern
PyObject *_PyUnicode_AsDefaultEncodedString(PyObject *unicode,
const char *errors);
PyObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_GetAttr(PyObject *v, PyObject *name)
{
/* The Unicode to string conversion is done here because the
existing tp_getattro slots expect a string object as name
and we wouldn't want to break those. */
if (PyUnicode_Check(name)) {
name = _PyUnicode_AsDefaultEncodedString(name, NULL);
if (name == NULL)
return NULL;
}
if (!PyString_Check(name)) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
"attribute name must be string");
return NULL;
}
if (v->ob_type->tp_getattro != NULL)
return (*v->ob_type->tp_getattro)(v, name);
else
return PyObject_GetAttrString(v, PyString_AS_STRING(name));
}
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_HasAttr(PyObject *v, PyObject *name)
{
PyObject *res = PyObject_GetAttr(v, name);
if (res != NULL) {
Py_DECREF(res);
return 1;
}
PyErr_Clear();
return 0;
}
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_SetAttr(PyObject *v, PyObject *name, PyObject *value)
{
int err;
/* The Unicode to string conversion is done here because the
existing tp_setattro slots expect a string object as name
and we wouldn't want to break those. */
if (PyUnicode_Check(name)) {
name = PyUnicode_AsEncodedString(name, NULL, NULL);
if (name == NULL)
return -1;
}
else
Py_INCREF(name);
if (!PyString_Check(name)){
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
"attribute name must be string");
err = -1;
}
else {
PyString_InternInPlace(&name);
if (v->ob_type->tp_setattro != NULL)
err = (*v->ob_type->tp_setattro)(v, name, value);
else
err = PyObject_SetAttrString(v,
PyString_AS_STRING(name), value);
}
Py_DECREF(name);
return err;
}
/* Test a value used as condition, e.g., in a for or if statement.
Return -1 if an error occurred */
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_IsTrue(PyObject *v)
{
int res;
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
if (v == Py_None)
res = 0;
else if (v->ob_type->tp_as_number != NULL &&
v->ob_type->tp_as_number->nb_nonzero != NULL)
res = (*v->ob_type->tp_as_number->nb_nonzero)(v);
else if (v->ob_type->tp_as_mapping != NULL &&
v->ob_type->tp_as_mapping->mp_length != NULL)
res = (*v->ob_type->tp_as_mapping->mp_length)(v);
else if (v->ob_type->tp_as_sequence != NULL &&
v->ob_type->tp_as_sequence->sq_length != NULL)
res = (*v->ob_type->tp_as_sequence->sq_length)(v);
else
res = 1;
if (res > 0)
res = 1;
return res;
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
}
1998-04-10 01:53:59 +08:00
/* equivalent of 'not v'
Return -1 if an error occurred */
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_Not(PyObject *v)
1998-04-10 01:53:59 +08:00
{
int res;
res = PyObject_IsTrue(v);
if (res < 0)
return res;
return res == 0;
}
/* Coerce two numeric types to the "larger" one.
Increment the reference count on each argument.
Return value:
-1 if an error occurred;
0 if the coercion succeeded (and then the reference counts are increased);
1 if no coercion is possible (and no error is raised).
*/
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyNumber_CoerceEx(PyObject **pv, PyObject **pw)
{
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
register PyObject *v = *pv;
register PyObject *w = *pw;
int res;
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
if (v->ob_type == w->ob_type && !PyInstance_Check(v)) {
Py_INCREF(v);
Py_INCREF(w);
return 0;
}
if (v->ob_type->tp_as_number && v->ob_type->tp_as_number->nb_coerce) {
res = (*v->ob_type->tp_as_number->nb_coerce)(pv, pw);
if (res <= 0)
return res;
}
if (w->ob_type->tp_as_number && w->ob_type->tp_as_number->nb_coerce) {
res = (*w->ob_type->tp_as_number->nb_coerce)(pw, pv);
if (res <= 0)
return res;
}
return 1;
}
/* Coerce two numeric types to the "larger" one.
Increment the reference count on each argument.
Return -1 and raise an exception if no coercion is possible
(and then no reference count is incremented).
*/
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyNumber_Coerce(PyObject **pv, PyObject **pw)
{
int err = PyNumber_CoerceEx(pv, pw);
if (err <= 0)
return err;
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError, "number coercion failed");
return -1;
}
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
1995-01-26 08:38:22 +08:00
/* Test whether an object can be called */
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyCallable_Check(PyObject *x)
1995-01-26 08:38:22 +08:00
{
if (x == NULL)
return 0;
if (x->ob_type->tp_call != NULL ||
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyFunction_Check(x) ||
PyMethod_Check(x) ||
PyCFunction_Check(x) ||
PyClass_Check(x))
1995-01-26 08:38:22 +08:00
return 1;
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
if (PyInstance_Check(x)) {
PyObject *call = PyObject_GetAttrString(x, "__call__");
1995-01-26 08:38:22 +08:00
if (call == NULL) {
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyErr_Clear();
1995-01-26 08:38:22 +08:00
return 0;
}
/* Could test recursively but don't, for fear of endless
recursion if some joker sets self.__call__ = self */
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
Py_DECREF(call);
1995-01-26 08:38:22 +08:00
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
/*
NoObject is usable as a non-NULL undefined value, used by the macro None.
There is (and should be!) no way to create other objects of this type,
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
so there is exactly one (which is indestructible, by the way).
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
*/
1992-03-28 01:26:13 +08:00
/* ARGSUSED */
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
static PyObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
none_repr(PyObject *op)
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
{
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
return PyString_FromString("None");
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
}
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
static PyTypeObject PyNothing_Type = {
PyObject_HEAD_INIT(&PyType_Type)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
0,
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
"None",
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
0,
0,
0, /*tp_dealloc*/ /*never called*/
0, /*tp_print*/
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
0, /*tp_getattr*/
0, /*tp_setattr*/
0, /*tp_compare*/
1994-08-30 16:27:36 +08:00
(reprfunc)none_repr, /*tp_repr*/
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
0, /*tp_as_number*/
0, /*tp_as_sequence*/
0, /*tp_as_mapping*/
0, /*tp_hash */
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
};
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject _Py_NoneStruct = {
PyObject_HEAD_INIT(&PyNothing_Type)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
};
/* NotImplemented is an object that can be used to signal that an
operation is not implemented for the given type combination. */
static PyObject *
NotImplemented_repr(PyObject *op)
{
return PyString_FromString("NotImplemented");
}
static PyTypeObject PyNotImplemented_Type = {
PyObject_HEAD_INIT(&PyType_Type)
0,
"NotImplemented",
0,
0,
0, /*tp_dealloc*/ /*never called*/
0, /*tp_print*/
0, /*tp_getattr*/
0, /*tp_setattr*/
0, /*tp_compare*/
(reprfunc)NotImplemented_repr, /*tp_repr*/
0, /*tp_as_number*/
0, /*tp_as_sequence*/
0, /*tp_as_mapping*/
0, /*tp_hash */
};
PyObject _Py_NotImplementedStruct = {
PyObject_HEAD_INIT(&PyNotImplemented_Type)
};
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
#ifdef Py_TRACE_REFS
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
static PyObject refchain = {&refchain, &refchain};
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_Py_ResetReferences(void)
{
refchain._ob_prev = refchain._ob_next = &refchain;
_Py_RefTotal = 0;
}
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_Py_NewReference(PyObject *op)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
{
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
_Py_RefTotal++;
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
op->ob_refcnt = 1;
op->_ob_next = refchain._ob_next;
op->_ob_prev = &refchain;
refchain._ob_next->_ob_prev = op;
refchain._ob_next = op;
#ifdef COUNT_ALLOCS
inc_count(op->ob_type);
#endif
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
}
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_Py_ForgetReference(register PyObject *op)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
{
#ifdef SLOW_UNREF_CHECK
register PyObject *p;
#endif
if (op->ob_refcnt < 0)
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
Py_FatalError("UNREF negative refcnt");
if (op == &refchain ||
op->_ob_prev->_ob_next != op || op->_ob_next->_ob_prev != op)
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
Py_FatalError("UNREF invalid object");
#ifdef SLOW_UNREF_CHECK
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
for (p = refchain._ob_next; p != &refchain; p = p->_ob_next) {
if (p == op)
break;
}
if (p == &refchain) /* Not found */
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
Py_FatalError("UNREF unknown object");
#endif
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
op->_ob_next->_ob_prev = op->_ob_prev;
op->_ob_prev->_ob_next = op->_ob_next;
op->_ob_next = op->_ob_prev = NULL;
1995-04-06 22:46:26 +08:00
#ifdef COUNT_ALLOCS
op->ob_type->tp_free++;
#endif
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
}
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_Py_Dealloc(PyObject *op)
1990-12-20 23:06:42 +08:00
{
destructor dealloc = op->ob_type->tp_dealloc;
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
_Py_ForgetReference(op);
(*dealloc)(op);
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
}
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_Py_PrintReferences(FILE *fp)
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
{
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
PyObject *op;
fprintf(fp, "Remaining objects:\n");
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
for (op = refchain._ob_next; op != &refchain; op = op->_ob_next) {
fprintf(fp, "[%d] ", op->ob_refcnt);
1997-05-02 11:12:38 +08:00
if (PyObject_Print(op, fp, 0) != 0)
PyErr_Clear();
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
putc('\n', fp);
}
}
PyObject *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_Py_GetObjects(PyObject *self, PyObject *args)
{
int i, n;
PyObject *t = NULL;
PyObject *res, *op;
if (!PyArg_ParseTuple(args, "i|O", &n, &t))
return NULL;
op = refchain._ob_next;
res = PyList_New(0);
if (res == NULL)
return NULL;
for (i = 0; (n == 0 || i < n) && op != &refchain; i++) {
while (op == self || op == args || op == res || op == t ||
t != NULL && op->ob_type != (PyTypeObject *) t) {
op = op->_ob_next;
if (op == &refchain)
return res;
}
if (PyList_Append(res, op) < 0) {
Py_DECREF(res);
return NULL;
}
op = op->_ob_next;
}
return res;
}
1990-10-14 20:07:46 +08:00
#endif
1996-01-12 09:24:09 +08:00
/* Hack to force loading of cobject.o */
1996-12-06 05:58:58 +08:00
PyTypeObject *_Py_cobject_hack = &PyCObject_Type;
/* Hack to force loading of abstract.o */
int (*_Py_abstract_hack)(PyObject *) = &PyObject_Size;
2000-08-16 20:27:23 +08:00
/* Python's malloc wrappers (see pymem.h) */
void *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyMem_Malloc(size_t nbytes)
{
#if _PyMem_EXTRA > 0
if (nbytes == 0)
nbytes = _PyMem_EXTRA;
#endif
return PyMem_MALLOC(nbytes);
}
void *
PyMem_Realloc(void *p, size_t nbytes)
{
#if _PyMem_EXTRA > 0
if (nbytes == 0)
nbytes = _PyMem_EXTRA;
#endif
return PyMem_REALLOC(p, nbytes);
}
void
PyMem_Free(void *p)
{
PyMem_FREE(p);
}
/* Python's object malloc wrappers (see objimpl.h) */
void *
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
PyObject_Malloc(size_t nbytes)
{
return PyObject_MALLOC(nbytes);
}
void *
PyObject_Realloc(void *p, size_t nbytes)
{
return PyObject_REALLOC(p, nbytes);
}
void
PyObject_Free(void *p)
{
PyObject_FREE(p);
}
/* These methods are used to control infinite recursion in repr, str, print,
etc. Container objects that may recursively contain themselves,
e.g. builtin dictionaries and lists, should used Py_ReprEnter() and
Py_ReprLeave() to avoid infinite recursion.
Py_ReprEnter() returns 0 the first time it is called for a particular
object and 1 every time thereafter. It returns -1 if an exception
occurred. Py_ReprLeave() has no return value.
See dictobject.c and listobject.c for examples of use.
*/
#define KEY "Py_Repr"
int
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
Py_ReprEnter(PyObject *obj)
{
PyObject *dict;
PyObject *list;
int i;
dict = PyThreadState_GetDict();
if (dict == NULL)
return -1;
list = PyDict_GetItemString(dict, KEY);
if (list == NULL) {
list = PyList_New(0);
if (list == NULL)
return -1;
if (PyDict_SetItemString(dict, KEY, list) < 0)
return -1;
Py_DECREF(list);
}
i = PyList_GET_SIZE(list);
while (--i >= 0) {
if (PyList_GET_ITEM(list, i) == obj)
return 1;
}
PyList_Append(list, obj);
return 0;
}
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
Py_ReprLeave(PyObject *obj)
{
PyObject *dict;
PyObject *list;
int i;
dict = PyThreadState_GetDict();
if (dict == NULL)
return;
list = PyDict_GetItemString(dict, KEY);
if (list == NULL || !PyList_Check(list))
return;
i = PyList_GET_SIZE(list);
/* Count backwards because we always expect obj to be list[-1] */
while (--i >= 0) {
if (PyList_GET_ITEM(list, i) == obj) {
PyList_SetSlice(list, i, i + 1, NULL);
break;
}
}
}
/*
trashcan
CT 2k0130
non-recursively destroy nested objects
CT 2k0223
everything is now done in a macro.
CT 2k0305
modified to use functions, after Tim Peter's suggestion.
CT 2k0309
modified to restore a possible error.
CT 2k0325
added better safe than sorry check for threadstate
CT 2k0422
complete rewrite. We now build a chain via ob_type
and save the limited number of types in ob_refcnt.
This is perfect since we don't need any memory.
A patch for free-threading would need just a lock.
*/
#define Py_TRASHCAN_TUPLE 1
#define Py_TRASHCAN_LIST 2
#define Py_TRASHCAN_DICT 3
#define Py_TRASHCAN_FRAME 4
#define Py_TRASHCAN_TRACEBACK 5
/* extend here if other objects want protection */
int _PyTrash_delete_nesting = 0;
PyObject * _PyTrash_delete_later = NULL;
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_PyTrash_deposit_object(PyObject *op)
{
int typecode;
if (PyTuple_Check(op))
typecode = Py_TRASHCAN_TUPLE;
else if (PyList_Check(op))
typecode = Py_TRASHCAN_LIST;
else if (PyDict_Check(op))
typecode = Py_TRASHCAN_DICT;
else if (PyFrame_Check(op))
typecode = Py_TRASHCAN_FRAME;
else if (PyTraceBack_Check(op))
typecode = Py_TRASHCAN_TRACEBACK;
2000-08-04 23:36:13 +08:00
else /* We have a bug here -- those are the only types in GC */ {
Py_FatalError("Type not supported in GC -- internal bug");
return; /* pacify compiler -- execution never here */
}
op->ob_refcnt = typecode;
op->ob_type = (PyTypeObject*)_PyTrash_delete_later;
_PyTrash_delete_later = op;
}
void
2000-07-09 23:48:49 +08:00
_PyTrash_destroy_chain(void)
{
while (_PyTrash_delete_later) {
PyObject *shredder = _PyTrash_delete_later;
_PyTrash_delete_later = (PyObject*) shredder->ob_type;
switch (shredder->ob_refcnt) {
case Py_TRASHCAN_TUPLE:
shredder->ob_type = &PyTuple_Type;
break;
case Py_TRASHCAN_LIST:
shredder->ob_type = &PyList_Type;
break;
case Py_TRASHCAN_DICT:
shredder->ob_type = &PyDict_Type;
break;
case Py_TRASHCAN_FRAME:
shredder->ob_type = &PyFrame_Type;
break;
case Py_TRASHCAN_TRACEBACK:
shredder->ob_type = &PyTraceBack_Type;
break;
}
_Py_NewReference(shredder);
++_PyTrash_delete_nesting;
Py_DECREF(shredder);
--_PyTrash_delete_nesting;
}
}