Fix over-aggressive PyErr_Clear(). The same code fragment appears in
various guises in list.extend(), map(), filter(), zip(), and internally
in PySequence_Tuple().
Also, add a testcase.
Formerly, the list_extend() code used several local variables to remember
its state across iterations. Since an iteration could call arbitrary
Python code, it was possible for the list state to be changed. The new
code uses dynamic structure references instead of C locals. So, they
are always up-to-date.
After list_resize() is called, its size has been updated but the new
cells are filled with NULLs. These needed to be filled before arbitrary
iteration code was called; otherwise, that code could attempt to modify
a list that was in a semi-invalid state. The solution was to change
the ob->size field back to a value reflecting the actual number of valid
cells.
The list resizing scheme only downsized when more than 16 elements were
removed in a single step: del a[100:120]. As a result, the list would
never shrink when popping elements off one at a time.
This patch makes it shrink whenever more than half of the space is unused.
Also, at Tim's suggestion, renamed _new_size to new_allocated. This makes
the code easier to understand.
comma expression in listpop() that was being returned. Still essentially
unused (as it is meant to be), but now the compiler thinks it is worth
*something* by having it incremented.
of no more than 8 elements cannot fail.
listpop(): Take advantage of that its calls to list_resize() and
list_ass_slice() can't fail. This is assert'ed in a debug build now, but
in an icky way. That is, you can't say:
assert(some_call() >= 0);
because then some_call() won't occur at all in a release build. So it
has to be a big pile of #ifdefs on Py_DEBUG (yuck), or the pleasant:
status = some_call();
assert(status >= 0);
But in that case, compilers may whine in a release build, because status
appears unused then. I'm not certain the ugly trick I used here will
convince all compilers to shut up about status (status is always "used" now,
as the first (ignored) clause in a comma expression).
impossible to remember, so renamed one to something obvious. Headed
off potential signed-vs-unsigned compiler complaints I introduced by
changing the type of a vrbl to unsigned. Removed the need for the
tedious explanation about "backward pointer loops" by looping on an
int instead.
result.
list_resize(): Document the intent. Code is increasingly relying on
subtle aspects of its behavior, and they deserve to be spelled out.
list_ass_slice(): A bit more simplification, by giving it a common
error exit and initializing more values.
Be clearer in comments about what "size" means (# of elements? # of
bytes?).
While the number of elements in a list slice must fit in an int, there's
no guarantee that the number of bytes occupied by the slice will. That
malloc() and memmove() take size_t arguments is a hint about that <wink>.
So changed to use size_t where appropriate.
ihigh - ilow should always be >= 0, but we never asserted that. We do
now.
The loop decref'ing the recycled slice had a subtle insecurity: C doesn't
guarantee that a pointer one slot *before* an array will compare "less
than" to a pointer within the array (it does guarantee that a pointer
one beyond the end of the array compares as expected). This was actually
an issue in KSR's C implementation, so isn't purely theoretical. Python
probably has other "go backwards" loops with a similar glitch.
list_clear() is OK (it marches an integer backwards, not a pointer).
though I tried to be very careful. This is a slight simplification, and it
adds a new feature: a small stack-allocated "recycled" array for the cases
when we don't remove too many items.
It allows PyList_SetSlice() to never fail if:
* you are sure that the object is a list; and
* you either do not remove more than 8 items, or clear the list.
This makes a number of other places in the source code correct again -- there
are some places that delete a single item without checking for MemoryErrors
raised by PyList_SetSlice(), or that clear the whole list, and sometimes the
context doesn't allow an error to be propagated.
invariants allows the ob_item != NULL check to be replaced with an
assertion.
* Added assertions to list_init() which document and verify that the
tp_new slot establishes the invariants. This may preclude a future
bug if a custom tp_new slot is written.
to NULL during the lifetime of the object.
* listobject.c nevertheless did not conform to the other invariants,
either; fixed.
* listobject.c now uses list_clear() as the obvious internal way to clear
a list, instead of abusing list_ass_slice() for that. It makes it easier
to enforce the invariant about ob_item == NULL.
* listsort() sets allocated to -1 during sort; any mutation will set it
to a value >= 0, so it is a safe way to detect mutation. A negative
value for allocated does not cause a problem elsewhere currently.
test_sort.py has a new test for this fix.
* listsort() leak: if items were added to the list during the sort, AND if
these items had a __del__ that puts still more stuff into the list,
then this more stuff (and the PyObject** array to hold them) were
overridden at the end of listsort() and never released.
mutation during list.sort() used to rely on that listobject.c always
NULL'ed ob_item when ob_size fell to 0. That's no longer true, so the
test for list mutation during a sort is no longer reliable. Changed the
test to rely instead on that listobject.c now never NULLs-out ob_item
after (if ever) ob_item gets a non-NULL value. This new assumption is
also documented now, as a required invariant in listobject.h.
The new assumption allowed some real simplification to some of the
hairier code in listsort(), so is a Good Thing on that count.
- Neatened the braces in PyList_New().
- Made sure "indexerr" was initialized to NULL.
- Factored if blocks in PyList_Append().
- Made sure "allocated" is initialized in list_init().
