-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bpo-45256: Don't track the exact depth of each InterpreterFrame
#30372
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Include/internal/pycore_frame.h
Outdated
@@ -44,7 +46,7 @@ typedef struct _interpreter_frame { | |||
int f_lasti; /* Last instruction if called */ | |||
int stacktop; /* Offset of TOS from localsplus */ | |||
PyFrameState f_state; /* What state the frame is in */ | |||
int depth; /* Depth of the frame in a ceval loop */ | |||
bool own_cframe; // Whether this is the "root" frame for the current CFrame |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure about this name.
I don't think the frame really owns the C frame. Also, be wary of using CFrame, as CFrame
is a struct name.
If I were to suggest a name, it would be is_entry
as this is the entry InterpreterFrame
for _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault
.
If you think ownership is a better mental model, then owns_cframe
is fine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@markshannon Can it be named backed_by_cframe
or cframe_backed
instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This has nothing to do with how the data is stored.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with Mark, I think it should be called entry_frame
or something similar. Reasoning about ownership is a bit more obscure in my opinion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was hoping somebody would suggest a better name! is_entry
it is...
Include/internal/pycore_frame.h
Outdated
@@ -101,7 +103,7 @@ _PyFrame_InitializeSpecials( | |||
frame->generator = NULL; | |||
frame->f_lasti = -1; | |||
frame->f_state = FRAME_CREATED; | |||
frame->depth = 0; | |||
frame->own_cframe = true; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should default to false
. Then it only need be set at the start of _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault
, not for every internal call.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A couple of minor issues, but sound in general.
When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: |
We only really care whether or not an exiting frame is the "root" of the current
CFrame
, which a boolean value can track more efficiently.(In fact, the current code is buggy, and doesn't even maintain
frame->depth
correctly... it's only ever set to0
or1
anyways!)https://bugs.python.org/issue45256