Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > I've seen your recent merge and I don't know if you have finished with > it.
Indeed, I'm done, r65654. Unless there are actual bugs in these patches (in the sense that they don't fix the reported problem, or introduce new bugs), I'd like to close this issue. > I think we should drop the "base" member in PyMemoryViewObject, it has > become redundant and confusing. I tried, and failed; feel free to submit a patch (as a new issue). The tricky part is that base is sometimes used as a tuple. > Also, I don't understand why memory_getbuf INCREFs view.obj, there is no > corresponding DECREF in memory_releasebuf and view.obj should already > have been INCREFed anyway. Ok, that's an open issue. Is the caller of FromMemory supposed to do Buffer_Release afterwards, or is ownership of the buffer transferred in the FromMemory call? (the issue didn't exist when the embedded reference was borrowed) To put it another way: view.obj has *not* been INCREFed. *view holds a reference, but that reference belongs to the caller, not to the memory object. Every time you initialize a PyObject* (such as view.obj), you need to INCREF, unless it's a borrowed reference. In any case, the corresponding DECREF *does* exist: in memory_dealloc, PyBuffer_Release is invoked, which releases the reference. > By the way, perhaps PyBuffer_Release should set view->obj and view->buf > to NULL (and view->len to -1?), it would be a simple way to signal that > the buffer can't be used anymore. That can be done; it's again a separate patch. _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3139> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
