Only Python may delete a python managed object. You cannot destroy
any python object explicitly from the C++ side of things.
Solution: allow the python wrapper and C++ instance being wrapped to
detach from one another. That way if the C++ object is deleted, you
zombify the python representation of it, and if python refcounts to
zero the python side, it can be destroyed and can mark the C++ object
as no longer visible to the python side.
I think BPL used to have explicit special support for auto-detaching
if you wrap an auto_ptr<> to a C++ object instance? You still need
some support code your end of course. I remember using a virtual
factory function taking and returning a void *, you could use this to
make any arbitrary wrapped C++ object "appear" in python.
Niall
On 6 May 2012 at 15:01, Adam Preble wrote:
> I'm running into my old friend the GIL when it comes time to destroy an
> object I've wrapped using boost::python::wrapper. The object is being
> bandied around as a shared pointer, and it's refcount is ending at the time
> I want. Unfortunately, I get the old "PyThreadState_Get: no current
> thread" error. This wrapped class has a lot of virtual functions that
> Python-derived classes have to implement. In the wrapper my methods fight
> for the GIL like this:
>
> void TheWrapper::Stuff(blablabla)
> {
> PyGILState_STATE gstate = PyGILState_Ensure();
> this->get_override("Stuff")( blablabla );
> PyGILState_Release(gstate);
> }
>
> This works fine. I am assuming I need to write something like this for the
> destructor, but I don't see anything about doing that for the destructor.
>
> This might be the wrong approach, so maybe I'll give a little more
> information:
> 1. The object was created in Python.
> 2. It implements an interface wrapped from the C++ side (the wrapper as
> mentioned above).
> 3. It gives the object to a container on the C++ side.
> 4. The C++ side has figured out it doesn't need it anymore.
> 5. This is happening in a different thread from where the object was first
> made.
> 6. Destruction is happening when the removal code goes out of scope.
> 7. Once the shared_ptr free code starts, the stack descends into the Python
> runtime, and there's nothing else on the C++ side coming back up that could
> compete with the GIL. So this is why I believe it is related to the
> destructor.
>
> I have pondered acquiring the GIL after explicitly resetting the
> shared_ptr, but not all the implementations of that object are actually
> implemented in Python, so that would be something of a hatchet job. I'd
> also rather--if I could help it--encapsulate the GIL acquisition stuff in
> the wrapper with everything else, rather than remembering to cooperate with
> the GIL in choice places sprinkled around my code. Any ideas?
>
--
Technology & Consulting Services - ned Productions Limited.
http://www.nedproductions.biz/. VAT reg: IE 9708311Q.
Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
_______________________________________________
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
