Message287752
| Author | methane |
|---|---|
| Recipients | lemburg, mark.dickinson, methane, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date | 2017-02-14.09:49:03 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1487065743.5.0.643738126106.issue29548@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> The argument tuple can be NULL for PyEval_CallObject() (it then gets replaced with an empty tuple), but will raise a segfault for PyObject_Call(). PyObject_CallObject() accepts NULL as args. Macro vs function is only difference of them. On the other hand, PyObject_CallObjectWithKeyword() doesn't have identical function. So I agree your suggestion to add NULL support to PyObject_Call(). We have more fast _PyObject_FastCall* APIs for performance critical code. Additional cost to check NULL in PyObject_Call() would be negligible. Any opinion from others? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2017-02-14 09:49:03 | methane | set | recipients: + methane, lemburg, mark.dickinson, vstinner, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2017-02-14 09:49:03 | methane | set | messageid: <1487065743.5.0.643738126106.issue29548@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017-02-14 09:49:03 | methane | link | issue29548 messages |
| 2017-02-14 09:49:03 | methane | create | |