STINNER Victor added the comment: Ok, I pushed a new commit "Add Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_FASTCALL flag" in my Git branch.
(By the way, I'm using the Git branch as a working copy, it can change anytime to get a nice list of commits. If you want reliable changes, use patches attached to this issue.) Serhiy Storchaka!: > For compatibility with extensions built with older Pythons you should define > new type flag and read tp_fastcall only if the flag is set. See for example > Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_FINALIZE. Wait, there is maybe an issue with the stable API in my design :-/ Let's say that a builtin type NEW defines tp_fastcall and uses fastcall_wrapper() for tp_call. A type OLD inherits from NEW and don't override tp_call (not tp_fastcall). Type OLD comes from an extension compiled with Python 3.6 and use the stable ABI. Does the type OLD contain the field tp_fastcall in memory? Is it possible to copy the tp_fastcall filed from type NEW into the type OLD? If not, the fastcall_wrapper() should be smarter to not get tp_fastcall from the type OLD but follow the MRO to find the first type with the Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_FASTCALL flag. Is it possible that this short loop to find has a cost on performances? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29259> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
