Skip to content

Conversation

@encukou
Copy link
Member

@encukou encukou commented Jan 30, 2026

From feedback on the discussion thread:

When integrating slots-based module creation is with the inittab, which currently requires PyModuleDef, it would be convenient to reuse the the same slots array for the MethodDef.

This PR allows slots that match what's already present in the PyModuleDef.

cc @ngoldbaum


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--144340.org.readthedocs.build/

When integrating slots-based module creation is with the inittab,
which currently requires PyModuleDef, it would be convenient to
reuse the the same slots array for the MethodDef.

Allow slots that match what's already present in the PyModuleDef.
@ngoldbaum
Copy link
Contributor

ngoldbaum commented Jan 30, 2026

I can confirm that with this PR the PyO3 tests all pass on my for-petr branch, which uses the same slots array for both initialization hooks and unconditionally sets m_name and m_doc in PyModuleDef. It's fine for PyO3's purposes to have duplicate information with this check to make sure that the duplicate information matches exactly.

members, the values must match.
For example, if you use :c:macro:`Py_mod_name` in :c:member:`!m_slots`,
:c:member:`PyModuleDef.m_name` must be set to the same pointer
(not just an equal string).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"set to the same pointer" is a strong constraint which is difficult to reach in C. For example, your test copies the string "test_capi/parrot", and rely on the compiler to merge equal strings to use the same pointer. Would it be possible to use strcmp() for the name and the docstring?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, thanks for the catch; I meant to fix that.

The issue is, where do you draw the line? Do m_methods & Py_mod_methods also need to be only “equal”? And the names of the methods contained there?

I'd rather keep this simple. After all, it's only a workaround.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants