Charles-François Natali added the comment: > This issue was opened to be able to use tracemalloc on numpy. I would > like to make sure that calloc is enough for numpy. I would prefer to > change the malloc API only once.
Then please at least rename the issue. Also, I don't see why everything should be done at once: calloc support is a self-contained change, which is useful outside of numpy. Enhanced tracemalloc support for numpy certainly belongs to another issue. Regarding the *Calloc functions: how about we provide a sane API instead of reproducing the cumbersome C API? I mean, why not expose: PyAPI_FUNC(void *) PyMem_Calloc(size_t size); insteaf of PyAPI_FUNC(void *) PyMem_Calloc(size_t nelem, size_t elsize); AFAICT, the two arguments are purely historical (it was used when malloc() didn't guarantee suitable alignment, and has the advantage of performing overflow check when doing the multiplication, but in our code we always check for it anyway). See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.c/jZbiyuYqjB4 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4083916/two-arguments-to-calloc And http://www.eglibc.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/libc/malloc/malloc.c?view=markup to check that calloc(nelem, elsize) is implemented as calloc(nelem * elsize) I'm also concerned about the change to _PyObject_GC_Malloc(): it now calls calloc() instead of malloc(): it can definitely be slower. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21233> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
