On Jan 8, 2:59 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de...@nospam.web.de> wrote:
> casevh schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm working with a C extension that needs to rapidly create and delete
> > objects. I came up with an approach to cache objects that are being
> > deleted and resurrect them instead of creating new objects. It appears
> > to work well but I'm afraid I may be missing something (besides
> > heeding the warning in the documentation that _Py_NewReference is for
> > internal interpreter use only).
>
> > Below is a simplified version of the approach I'm using:
>
> > MyType_dealloc(MyTypeObject *self)
> > {
> > if(I_want_to_save_MyType(self)) {
> > // Save the object pointer in a cache
> > save_it(self);
> > } else {
> > PyObject_Del(self);
> > }
> > }
>
> > MyType_new(void)
> > {
> > MyTypeObject *self;
> > if(there_is_an_object_in_the_cache) {
> > self = get_object_from_cache;
> > _Py_NewReference((PyObject*)self);
> > } else {
> > if(!(self = PyObjectNew(MyTypeObject, &MyType))
> > return NULL;
> > initialize_the_new_object(self);
> > }
> > return self;
> > }
>
> > The objects referenced in the cache have a reference count of 0 and I
> > don't increment the reference count until I need to resurrect the
> > object. Could these objects be clobbered by the garbage collector?
> > Would it be safer to create the new reference before stuffing the
> > object into the cache (even though it will look like there is a memory
> > leak when running under a debug build)?
>
> Deep out of my guts I'd say keeping a reference, and using you own
> LRU-scheme would be the safest without residing to use dark magic.
>
> Diez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the reply. I realized that I missed one detail. The objects
are created by the extension but are deleted by Python. I don't know
that an object is no longer needed until its tp_dealloc is called. At
that point, its reference count is 0.
casevh
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
