On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 13:28 -0400, Eric Feng wrote: > Additionally, by using the old model and the pointer per your > suggestion, > we are able to find the representative tree and emit a more accurate > diagnostic! > > rc3.c:23:10: warning: expected ‘item’ to have reference count: ‘1’ > but ob_refcnt field is: ‘2’ > 23 | return list; > | ^~~~ > ‘create_py_object’: events 1-4 > | > | 4 | PyObject* item = PyLong_FromLong(3); > | | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | | | > | | (1) when ‘PyLong_FromLong’ succeeds > | 5 | PyObject* list = PyList_New(1); > | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | | | > | | (2) when ‘PyList_New’ succeeds > |...... > | 14 | PyList_Append(list, item); > | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | | | > | | (3) when ‘PyList_Append’ succeeds, moving buffer > |...... > | 23 | return list; > | | ~~~~ > | | | > | | (4) here > |
Excellent, that's a big improvement. > > If a representative tree is not found, I decided we should just bail > out > of emitting a diagnostic for now, to avoid confusing the user on what > the problem is. Fair enough. > > I've attached the patch for this (on top of the previous one) below. > If > it also looks good, I can merge it with the last patch and push it in > at > the same time. I don't mind either way, but please can you update the tests so that we have some automated test coverage that the correct name is being printed in the warning. Thanks Dave
