Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow local use of static PyMutex in the C analyzer #127102

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 22, 2024

Conversation

ZeroIntensity
Copy link
Member

@ZeroIntensity ZeroIntensity commented Nov 21, 2024

As seen with gh-127055, the C analyzer doesn't like static local variables, but it's fine to do so for a PyMutex. If we want to use a similar approach for other libc functions (as mentioned in gh-127081), it would be better to gracefully handle this instead of adding to ignored.tsv every time.

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

Can you rebase your PR on the main branch and remove:

diff --git a/Tools/c-analyzer/cpython/ignored.tsv b/Tools/c-analyzer/cpython/ignored.tsv
index 4327a111eed..686f3935d91 100644
--- a/Tools/c-analyzer/cpython/ignored.tsv
+++ b/Tools/c-analyzer/cpython/ignored.tsv
@@ -739,7 +739,6 @@ Modules/expat/xmlrole.c     -       declClose       -
 Modules/expat/xmlrole.c        -       error   -
 
 ## other
-Modules/grpmodule.c    grp_getgrall_impl       getgrall_mutex  -
 Modules/_io/_iomodule.c        -       _PyIO_Module    -
 Modules/_sqlite/module.c       -       _sqlite3module  -
 Modules/clinic/md5module.c.h   _md5_md5        _keywords       -

Copy link
Member

@ericsnowcurrently ericsnowcurrently left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would you mind removing any corresponding variables from ignored.tsv (and/or globals-to-fix.tsv), like the one added in gh-127055? That would help verify that this change is working right.

@bedevere-app
Copy link

bedevere-app bot commented Nov 21, 2024

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, the ignore from Victor's PR has been removed. I'll do a more thorough audit of what needs to get un-ignored when I'm more available later today.

Copy link
Member

@vstinner vstinner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
Member Author

Hmm, this seems like a bedevere bug. This should still have awaiting changes per Eric's review, not awaiting merge.

Copy link
Member

@ericsnowcurrently ericsnowcurrently left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
Member Author

Did a search, and it looks like no other mutexes need to get un-ignored. We're good to merge.

@vstinner vstinner merged commit 89125e9 into python:main Nov 22, 2024
37 of 38 checks passed
@vstinner
Copy link
Member

Merged, thanks.

@ZeroIntensity ZeroIntensity deleted the static-mutex-in-analyzer branch November 22, 2024 11:20
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