Re: [RFC 0/4] Better Python safety

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>> with some type-safety elsewhere as well).  Essentially I think we
>> could end up making new instances with just 'new'.
>> I didn't want to really touch this until the stable ABI work
>> related
>> to type-instantiation is done.

> Yes please :)

I'm not totally sure if the 'new' plan is possible.

Or maybe you were responding to me waiting until your type-instantiation
work is done.  FAOD I am still planning to wait on that.

> So after the migration, all the extension types have the
> Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC flag, are allocated via PyObject_GC_New(), and
> every PyType_Slot sets Py_tp_traverse, Py_tp_clear, and Py_tp_dealloc.

> Some of the types had circular dependencies due to a type referencing
> the other one similarly to what happens between two nodes of a doubly
> linked list. In those cases, the circular dependency have to be
> broken.  Also, some types already should have required garbage
> collection management even with static types.

> Are your findings converging with mine ?

Yes I think so.

There's a bug in bugzilla about how gdb doesn't implement the 'traverse'
idea but should.  You can probably cause memory leaks right now by
making self-references via __dict__.

Tom