Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> > On 28 Apr 2020, at 20:38, Jim J. Jewett jimjjew...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why do sub-interpreters require (separate and) heap-allocated types?
> > It seems types that are statically allocated are a pretty good use for
> > immortal
> > objects, where you never change the
On 28Apr2020 2006, Steve Dower wrote:
(For those who aren't following it, there's a discussion with a patch
and benchmarks going on at https://bugs.python.org/issue40255 about
making objects individually immortal. It's more focused around
copy-on-write, rather than subinterpreters, but the
If the object is going to live until the "end of time"
(process/runtime/whatever) then there'll never be a need to deallocate
it, and so there's no point counting how many references exist (and
ditto for anything that it references).
Currently, statically allocated types include references to
> On 28 Apr 2020, at 20:38, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
>
> Why do sub-interpreters require (separate and) heap-allocated types?
>
> It seems types that are statically allocated are a pretty good use for
> immortal objects, where you never change the refcount ... and then I don't
> see why you
I don't know the answer to this, but what are some examples of objects
where you never change the refcount? Are these Python objects? If so,
wouldn't doing something like adding the object to a list necessarily
change its refcount, since the list implementation only knows, "I have a
reference to
