Example in C-API memory management doc has confusing order

[ericsnowcurrently]

BPO	17042
Nosy	@skrah, @ericsnowcurrently

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2013-01-26.18:42:00.705>
created_at = <Date 2013-01-26.18:20:37.917>
labels = ['type-feature', 'docs']
title = 'Example in C-API memory management doc has confusing order'
updated_at = <Date 2013-01-27.00:14:02.354>
user = 'https://github.com/ericsnowcurrently'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2013-01-27.00:14:02.354>
actor = 'eric.snow'
assignee = 'docs@python'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2013-01-26.18:42:00.705>
closer = 'ezio.melotti'
components = ['Documentation']
creation = <Date 2013-01-26.18:20:37.917>
creator = 'eric.snow'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 17042
keywords = []
message_count = 5.0
messages = ['180697', '180698', '180719', '180722', '180724']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['skrah', 'docs@python', 'eric.snow']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'low'
resolution = 'rejected'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue17042'
versions = ['Python 2.7', 'Python 3.3', 'Python 3.4']

[ericsnowcurrently]

In http://docs.python.org/dev/c-api/memory.html#examples:

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
char *buf1 = PyMem_New(char, BUFSIZ);
char *buf2 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZ);
char *buf3 = (char *) PyMem_Malloc(BUFSIZ);
...
PyMem_Del(buf3);  /* Wrong -- should be PyMem_Free() */
free(buf2);       /* Right -- allocated via malloc() */
free(buf1);       /* Fatal -- should be PyMem_Del()  */
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there a good reason to have the second set of 3 lines in the opposite order as the first three? At first I missed that they were in a different order and thought there was an error in the example. If there's no good reason for the order, it would be worth fixing. If there is a good reason, a comment in the example would help. Either way I'd be glad to patch it (will go ahead with fixing the ordering later today if no one does it first).

[skrah]

Please don't change this: It's a common pattern in C to undo memory
allocations in the opposite order.

[ericsnowcurrently]

Thanks for clarifying, Stefan. Are you opposed to a comment in the example?

[skrah]

Moderately opposed, yes. PyMem_Malloc()/PyMem_Free() and PyMem_New()/PyMem_Del()
are already explained in depth above.

[ericsnowcurrently]

Sorry, I'd meant something like this:

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
char *buf1 = PyMem_New(char, BUFSIZ);
char *buf2 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZ);
char *buf3 = (char *) PyMem_Malloc(BUFSIZ);
...
/* in reverse order */
PyMem_Del(buf3);  /* Wrong -- should be PyMem_Free() */
free(buf2);       /* Right -- allocated via malloc() */
free(buf1);       /* Fatal -- should be PyMem_Del()  */
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This will help if someone does not know the common pattern.