[issue45459] Limited API support for Py_buffer

[STINNER Victor]

STINNER Victor <vstinner at python.org> added the comment:

Maybe a PEP is needed to collect usages of the Py_buffer API and check if the ABI is future proof. A PEP may help to discuss with other projects which currently consume this API.

I suggest to start with the smallest possible API and then slowly extend it. It's too easy to make mistakes :-( Once it's added to the stable ABI, it will be really hard to change it.

For example, PyBuffer.format is a "char*", but who owns the string? For a stable ABI, I would suggest to duplicate the string.

For shape, stripes and suboffsets arrays, I would also suggest to allocate these arrays on the heap people to ensure that it cannot be modified from the outside.

In your PR, PyBuffer_GetLayout() gives indirectly access to the internal Py_buffer structure members and allows to modify them. One way is to avoid this issue is to return a *copy* of these arrays.

I would prefer to require to call "Set" functions to modify a Py_buffer to ensure that a buffer always remains consistency.


> PyBuffer_NewEx(PyObject *obj, void *buf,  Py_ssize_t len, Py_ssize_t itemsize, int readonly, int ndim, char *format, Py_ssize_t *shape, Py_ssize_t *strides, Py_ssize_t *suboffsets, void *internal)

This API looks like PyCode_New() which was broken *often* so it looks like a bad pattern for a stable ABI.

Maybe PyBuffer_New() + many Set() functions would be more future proof.

But I don't know which Py_buffer members are mandatory to have a "valid" buffer.

What if tomorrow we add new members. Will it be possible to initalize them to a reasonable default value?

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue45459>
_______________________________________