[Numpy-discussion] Ticket review: #848, leak in PyArray_DescrFromType

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Sat Jul 19 12:44:34 CDT 2008


On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Michael Abbott <michael@araneidae.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
> > It looks like with that added DECREF, the reference count leak is gone.
>
> I've looked at the latest head, and I agree that the problem is now
> solved.
>
> There is an important difference from my original solution: typecode is no
> longer reused after the finish label (instead it is always created anew).
> This makes all the difference in the world.
>
> I'm not actually convinced by the comment that's there now, which says
>        /* typecode will be NULL */
> but in truth it doesn't matter -- because of the correcly placed DECREF
> after the PyArray_Scalar calls the routine no longer owns typecode.
>
> If I can refer to my last message, I made the point that there wasn't a
> good invariant at the finish label -- we didn't know how many references
> to typecode we were responsible for at that point -- and I offered the
> solution to keep typecode.  Instead you have chosen to recreate typecode,
> which I hadn't realised was just as good.
>
> This code is still horrible, but I don't think I want to try to understand
> it anymore.  It'd be really nice (it'd make me feel a lot better) if you'd
> agree that my original patch was in fact correct.  I'm not disputing the
> correcness of the current solution (except I think that typecode can end
> up being created twice, but who really cares?) but I've put a lot of
> effort into arguing my case, and the fact is my original patch was not
> wrong.
>

Yep, the original patch looks good now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://projects.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20080719/9bb57cf9/attachment.html 


More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list