Commit 12f209ec authored by Vinay Sajip's avatar Vinay Sajip Committed by GitHub

bpo-22273: Update ctypes to correctly handle arrays in small structur… (GH-15839)

parent 221fd847
......@@ -477,6 +477,47 @@ class StructureTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
self.assertEqual(s.first, got.first)
self.assertEqual(s.second, got.second)
def test_array_in_struct(self):
# See bpo-22273
# These should mirror the structures in Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c
class Test2(Structure):
_fields_ = [
('data', c_ubyte * 16),
]
class Test3(Structure):
_fields_ = [
('data', c_double * 2),
]
s = Test2()
expected = 0
for i in range(16):
s.data[i] = i
expected += i
dll = CDLL(_ctypes_test.__file__)
func = dll._testfunc_array_in_struct1
func.restype = c_int
func.argtypes = (Test2,)
result = func(s)
self.assertEqual(result, expected)
# check the passed-in struct hasn't changed
for i in range(16):
self.assertEqual(s.data[i], i)
s = Test3()
s.data[0] = 3.14159
s.data[1] = 2.71828
expected = 3.14159 + 2.71828
func = dll._testfunc_array_in_struct2
func.restype = c_double
func.argtypes = (Test3,)
result = func(s)
self.assertEqual(result, expected)
# check the passed-in struct hasn't changed
self.assertEqual(s.data[0], 3.14159)
self.assertEqual(s.data[1], 2.71828)
class PointerMemberTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
......
......@@ -74,6 +74,45 @@ _testfunc_reg_struct_update_value(TestReg in)
((volatile TestReg *)&in)->second = 0x0badf00d;
}
/*
* See bpo-22273. Structs containing arrays should work on Linux 64-bit.
*/
typedef struct {
unsigned char data[16];
} Test2;
EXPORT(int)
_testfunc_array_in_struct1(Test2 in)
{
int result = 0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 16; i++)
result += in.data[i];
/* As the structure is passed by value, changes to it shouldn't be
* reflected in the caller.
*/
memset(in.data, 0, sizeof(in.data));
return result;
}
typedef struct {
double data[2];
} Test3;
EXPORT(double)
_testfunc_array_in_struct2(Test3 in)
{
double result = 0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 2; i++)
result += in.data[i];
/* As the structure is passed by value, changes to it shouldn't be
* reflected in the caller.
*/
memset(in.data, 0, sizeof(in.data));
return result;
}
EXPORT(void)testfunc_array(int values[4])
{
......
......@@ -350,6 +350,9 @@ PyCStructUnionType_update_stgdict(PyObject *type, PyObject *fields, int isStruct
int pack;
Py_ssize_t ffi_ofs;
int big_endian;
#if defined(X86_64)
int arrays_seen = 0;
#endif
/* HACK Alert: I cannot be bothered to fix ctypes.com, so there has to
be a way to use the old, broken semantics: _fields_ are not extended
......@@ -501,6 +504,10 @@ PyCStructUnionType_update_stgdict(PyObject *type, PyObject *fields, int isStruct
Py_XDECREF(pair);
return -1;
}
#if defined(X86_64)
if (PyCArrayTypeObject_Check(desc))
arrays_seen = 1;
#endif
dict = PyType_stgdict(desc);
if (dict == NULL) {
Py_DECREF(pair);
......@@ -641,6 +648,106 @@ PyCStructUnionType_update_stgdict(PyObject *type, PyObject *fields, int isStruct
stgdict->align = total_align;
stgdict->length = len; /* ADD ffi_ofs? */
#if defined(X86_64)
#define MAX_ELEMENTS 16
if (arrays_seen && (size <= 16)) {
/*
* See bpo-22273. Arrays are normally treated as pointers, which is
* fine when an array name is being passed as parameter, but not when
* passing structures by value that contain arrays. On 64-bit Linux,
* small structures passed by value are passed in registers, and in
* order to do this, libffi needs to know the true type of the array
* members of structs. Treating them as pointers breaks things.
*
* By small structures, we mean ones that are 16 bytes or less. In that
* case, there can't be more than 16 elements after unrolling arrays,
* as we (will) disallow bitfields. So we can collect the true ffi_type
* values in a fixed-size local array on the stack and, if any arrays
* were seen, replace the ffi_type_pointer.elements with a more
* accurate set, to allow libffi to marshal them into registers
* correctly. It means one more loop over the fields, but if we got
* here, the structure is small, so there aren't too many of those.
*/
ffi_type *actual_types[MAX_ELEMENTS + 1];
int actual_type_index = 0;
memset(actual_types, 0, sizeof(actual_types));
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
PyObject *name, *desc;
PyObject *pair = PySequence_GetItem(fields, i);
StgDictObject *dict;
int bitsize = 0;
if (pair == NULL) {
return -1;
}
if (!PyArg_ParseTuple(pair, "UO|i", &name, &desc, &bitsize)) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
"'_fields_' must be a sequence of (name, C type) pairs");
Py_XDECREF(pair);
return -1;
}
dict = PyType_stgdict(desc);
if (dict == NULL) {
Py_DECREF(pair);
PyErr_Format(PyExc_TypeError,
"second item in _fields_ tuple (index %zd) must be a C type",
i);
return -1;
}
if (!PyCArrayTypeObject_Check(desc)) {
/* Not an array. Just copy over the element ffi_type. */
actual_types[actual_type_index++] = &dict->ffi_type_pointer;
assert(actual_type_index <= MAX_ELEMENTS);
}
else {
int length = dict->length;
StgDictObject *edict;
edict = PyType_stgdict(dict->proto);
if (edict == NULL) {
Py_DECREF(pair);
PyErr_Format(PyExc_TypeError,
"second item in _fields_ tuple (index %zd) must be a C type",
i);
return -1;
}
/* Copy over the element's type, length times. */
while (length > 0) {
actual_types[actual_type_index++] = &edict->ffi_type_pointer;
assert(actual_type_index <= MAX_ELEMENTS);
length--;
}
}
Py_DECREF(pair);
}
actual_types[actual_type_index++] = NULL;
/*
* Replace the old elements with the new, taking into account
* base class elements where necessary.
*/
assert(stgdict->ffi_type_pointer.elements);
PyMem_Free(stgdict->ffi_type_pointer.elements);
stgdict->ffi_type_pointer.elements = PyMem_New(ffi_type *,
ffi_ofs + actual_type_index);
if (stgdict->ffi_type_pointer.elements == NULL) {
PyErr_NoMemory();
return -1;
}
if (ffi_ofs) {
memcpy(stgdict->ffi_type_pointer.elements,
basedict->ffi_type_pointer.elements,
ffi_ofs * sizeof(ffi_type *));
}
memcpy(&stgdict->ffi_type_pointer.elements[ffi_ofs], actual_types,
actual_type_index * sizeof(ffi_type *));
}
#endif
/* We did check that this flag was NOT set above, it must not
have been set until now. */
if (stgdict->flags & DICTFLAG_FINAL) {
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment