Message411996
| Author | vstinner |
|---|---|
| Recipients | JunyiXie, KubaO, eric.snow, h-vetinari, mloskot, pablogsal, rhettinger, vstinner |
| Date | 2022-01-28.13:50:38 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1643377838.35.0.103294375343.issue39511@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> On such platforms, the `PyGet_Foo` API can be on equal footing with the legacy `Py_Foo` statics, i.e. both would do the same thing. That's how I've done it in my experiment. The obvious problem is that on platforms without compiler support for TLS, `Py_Foo` would be unavailable, and that's probably a no-go for an API that wouldn't be deprecated. My GH-18301 PR uses "#define Py_None Py_GetNone()" which is backward compatible in terms of API. Py_GetNone() can have various implementations, it doesn't matter at the API level. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-01-28 13:50:38 | vstinner | set | recipients: + vstinner, rhettinger, eric.snow, mloskot, pablogsal, h-vetinari, JunyiXie, KubaO |
| 2022-01-28 13:50:38 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1643377838.35.0.103294375343.issue39511@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2022-01-28 13:50:38 | vstinner | link | issue39511 messages |
| 2022-01-28 13:50:38 | vstinner | create | |