Replace the private _PyUnicodeWriter with the public PyUnicodeWriter.
Replace PyObject_Repr() + _PyUnicodeWriter_WriteStr()
with PyUnicodeWriter_WriteRepr().
This replaces `_PyList_FromArraySteal` with `_PyList_FromStackRefSteal`.
It's functionally equivalent, but takes a `_PyStackRef` array instead of
an array of `PyObject` pointers.
Co-authored-by: Ken Jin <kenjin@python.org>
This combines and updates our freelist handling to use a consistent
implementation. Objects in the freelist are linked together using the
first word of memory block.
If configured with freelists disabled, these operations are essentially
no-ops.
Make error message for index() methods consistent
Remove the repr of the searched value (which can be arbitrary large)
from ValueError messages for list.index(), range.index(), deque.index(),
deque.remove() and ShareableList.index(). Make the error messages
consistent with error messages for other index() and remove()
methods.
This makes the following macros public as part of the non-limited C-API for
locking a single object or two objects at once.
* `Py_BEGIN_CRITICAL_SECTION(op)` / `Py_END_CRITICAL_SECTION()`
* `Py_BEGIN_CRITICAL_SECTION2(a, b)` / `Py_END_CRITICAL_SECTION2()`
The supporting functions and structs used by the macros are also exposed for
cases where C macros are not available.
The `list_preallocate_exact` function did not zero initialize array
contents. In the free-threaded build, this could expose uninitialized
memory to concurrent readers between the call to
`list_preallocate_exact` and the filling of the array contents with
items.
Add a special case for `list.extend(dict)` and `list(dict)` so that those
patterns behave atomically with respect to modifications to the list or
dictionary.
This is required by multiprocessing, which assumes that
`list(_finalizer_registry)` is atomic.
Rewrote binarysort() for clarity.
Also changed the signature to be more coherent (it was mixing sortslice with raw pointers).
No change in method or functionality. However, I left some experiments in, disabled for now
via `#if` tricks. Since this code was first written, some kinds of comparisons have gotten
enormously faster (like for lists of floats), which changes the tradeoffs.
For example, plain insertion sort's simpler innermost loop and highly predictable branches
leave it very competitive (even beating, by a bit) binary insertion when comparisons are
very cheap, despite that it can do many more compares. And it wins big on runs that
are already sorted (moving the next one in takes only 1 compare then).
So I left code for a plain insertion sort, to make future experimenting easier.
Also made the maximum value of minrun a `#define` (``MAX_MINRUN`) to make
experimenting with that easier too.
And another bit of `#if``-disabled code rewrites binary insertion's innermost loop to
remove its unpredictable branch. Surprisingly, this doesn't really seem to help
overall. I'm unclear on why not. It certainly adds more instructions, but they're very
simple, and it's hard to be believe they cost as much as a branch miss.
* GH-116554: Relax list.sort()'s notion of "descending" run
Rewrote `count_run()` so that sub-runs of equal elements no longer end a descending run. Both ascending and descending runs can have arbitrarily many sub-runs of arbitrarily many equal elements now. This is tricky, because we only use ``<`` comparisons, so checking for equality doesn't come "for free". Surprisingly, it turned out there's a very cheap (one comparison) way to determine whether an ascending run consisted of all-equal elements. That sealed the deal.
In addition, after a descending run is reversed in-place, we now go on to see whether it can be extended by an ascending run that just happens to be adjacent. This succeeds in finding at least one additional element to append about half the time, and so appears to more than repay its cost (the savings come from getting to skip a binary search, when a short run is artificially forced to length MIINRUN later, for each new element `count_run()` can add to the initial run).
While these have been in the back of my mind for years, a question on StackOverflow pushed it to action:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/78108792/
They were wondering why it took about 4x longer to sort a list like:
[999_999, 999_999, ..., 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0]
than "similar" lists. Of course that runs very much faster after this patch.
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Pieter Eendebak <pieter.eendebak@gmail.com>
The new `PyList_GetItemRef` is similar to `PyList_GetItem`, but returns
a strong reference instead of a borrowed reference. Additionally, if the
passed "list" object is not a list, the function sets a `TypeError`
instead of calling `PyErr_BadInternalCall()`.
Fix undefined behavior warnings (UBSan -fsanitize=function), for example:
Objects/object.c:674:11: runtime error: call to function list_repr through pointer to incorrect function type 'struct _object *(*)(struct _object *)'
listobject.c:382: note: list_repr defined here
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior Objects/object.c:674:11 in
* Split list_extend() into two sub-functions: list_extend_fast() and
list_extend_iter().
* list_inplace_concat() no longer has to call Py_DECREF() on the
list_extend() result, since list_extend() now returns an int.
gh-106168: Update the size only after setting the item, to avoid temporary inconsistencies.
Also remove the "what's new" sentence regarding the size setting since tuples cannot grow after allocation.
Mark Shannon
Victor Stinner
Donghee Na
Sam Gross
Serhiy Storchaka
Xie Yanbo
Nikita Sobolev
Dino Viehland
Tim Peters
Ken Jin
Christopher Chavez
scoder