Swap all utility code types to be heap-types/type-specs #6634
Conversation
| @@ -351,90 +348,6 @@ static PyType_Spec __pyx_AsyncGenType_spec = { | |||
| Py_TPFLAGS_DEFAULT | Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC | Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_FINALIZE, /*tp_flags*/ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if I should add Py_TPFLAGS_IMMUTABLETYPE to all of these? That's probably the main visible difference between the heap-type and static-type version, and think they genuinely should be immutable.
Cython/Utility/ModuleSetupCode.c
Outdated
| // "Py_am_send" requires Py3.10 when using type specs. | ||
| #define __PYX_HAS_PY_AM_SEND (!CYTHON_USE_TYPE_SPECS || CYTHON_USE_AM_SEND && __PYX_LIMITED_VERSION_HEX >= 0x030A0000) | ||
| // "Py_am_send" requires Py3.10 when using type specs (which utility code types do). | ||
| #define __PYX_HAS_PY_AM_SEND CYTHON_USE_AM_SEND && __PYX_LIMITED_VERSION_HEX >= 0x030A0000 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we keep the static type implementation of coroutines for Py3.[89] then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it can be made to with with heaptypes (outside the limited API). It's probably just a case of rewriting tp_as_async after creation so it points back to a statically allocated version. I'll give that a go in the near future
Cython/Utility/ModuleSetupCode.c
Outdated
| // "Py_am_send" requires Py3.10 when using type specs (which utility code types do). | ||
| #define __PYX_HAS_PY_AM_SEND CYTHON_USE_AM_SEND && __PYX_LIMITED_VERSION_HEX >= 0x030A0000 | ||
| #if !CYTHON_USE_AM_SEND | ||
| #define __PYX_HAS_PY_AM_SEND 0 | ||
| #elif __PYX_LIMITED_VERSION_HEX >= 0x030A0000 | ||
| #define __PYX_HAS_PY_AM_SEND 1 | ||
| #else | ||
| #define __PYX_HAS_PY_AM_SEND 2 // our own backported implementation | ||
| #endif |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIUC, this means that a Cython module built for Limited API 3.9 is not compatible with one built for Limited API 3.10, right? (Assuming they use generators/coroutines.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Not compatible" in the sense that they shouldn't share the same ABI module.
They don't currently have a separate ABI prefix and probably should
Based on
cython/Cython/Utility/ModuleSetupCode.c
Lines 1237 to 1245 in bf4e9a3
I think the incompatibility predates this PR, but it's probably the time to fix it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added a different ABI suffix for this.
Thinking about it more, I'm not convinced it's really a problem - I think all that will happen is that the slot won't be set and set won't get used. But it's a little hard to be absolutely sure so I've added the suffix.
Closes #6633 (assuming that it doesn't break anything)