Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] [gdb/python] Introduce py_{none, true, false, notimplemented} functions

[Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>]

On 5/15/26 7:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Tom> +   So for the limited C API 3.12 and newer, we could just return a
> Tom> +   "PyObject *" instead.
> 
> I don't think this sentence is correct.  I mean, it might work in some
> places, but using this universally would severely uglify gdb because
> then spots operating generically would have to check specifically for
> such objects.  IMO object immortality is really best thought of as an
> implementation detail of CPython and not an exposed feature.

Hi Tom,

I think the sentence is correct, and I still don't understand why you 
think its incorrect.

What I'm trying to do here, is paraphrase the CPython implementation for 
say Py_RETURN_None:
...
/* Macro for returning Py_None from a function. 

  * Only treat Py_None as immortal in the limited C API 3.12 and newer. */
#if defined(Py_LIMITED_API) && Py_LIMITED_API+0 < 0x030c0000
#  define Py_RETURN_NONE return Py_NewRef(Py_None)
#else
#  define Py_RETURN_NONE return Py_None
#endif
...

AFAICT, I'm saying the exact same thing.

Is that not the case, or are you saying there's a bug in CPython?

Thanks,
- Tom