Bug #18007
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) over 3 years ago
A pull request for this feature has been submitted at https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/4604 ## Problem being solved This option is intended to help developers of C extensions to check if their code meets the requirements explained in "doc/extension.rdoc". Specifically, I want to ensure that `T_DATA` object classes undefine or redefine the alloc function. `allocate` method. https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/6963f8f743b42f9004a0879cd66c550f18987352/doc/extension.rdoc#label-Write+the+C+Code says: > Since Object.allocate allocates an ordinary T_OBJECT type (instead of T_DATA), it's important to either use rb_define_alloc_func() to overwrite it or rb_undef_alloc_func() to delete it. (note: which matters when using TypedData_Make_Struct/TypedData_Wrap_Struct as the native pointer is supplied without calling the class alloc function). There is currently no easy way for an author of a C extension to easily see where they have made the mistake of letting the default `allocate` class method remain (and therefore `class.new` creating a T_OBJECT instead of T_DATA and not setting the data pointer). remain. ## Description of the solution Compiled with this option, Ruby will warn when a `T_DATA` object is created whose class has not undefined or redefined the `allocate` method. A new function is defined, `rb_data_object_check`. That function is called from `rb_data_object_wrap()` and `rb_data_typed_object_wrap()` (which implement the `Data_Wrap_Struct` family of macros). The warning, when emitted, looks like this: ``` warning: T_DATA class Nokogiri::XML::Document should undefine or redefine the allocate method, please see doc/extension.rdoc ``` ## Examples of this problem in the wild Using this option, I found that [many of Nokogiri's classes needed to undefine `allocate`](https://github.com/sparklemotion/nokogiri/commit/c5ba3a5). This PR also updates these core Ruby classes by undefining `allocate`: - `ObjectSpace::InternalObjectWrapper` - `Socket::Ifaddr` ## Questions for reviewers __Does this check really need to be behind a configuration option?__ Performance impact is very small (see benchmarks below), but I put it behind a flag because I am worried that there may be a many C extensions that would emit warnings at runtime, and the users of those extensions cannot fix the problem and so would mostly just be annoyed. __Should this warning be emitted with the `deprecated` category?__ ## Benchmarking I benchmarked this code by allocating `Nokogiri::XML::NodeSet`s in a loop. This is a class with a [relatively simple `allocate` function](https://github.com/sparklemotion/nokogiri/blob/6d688d8c0f3351797e9576d3710acf458582bb30/ext/nokogiri/xml_node_set.c#L441-L464). The runs cover the four combinations of enabled/disabled, and warnings/no-warnings. ``` ruby 3.1.0dev (2021-06-25T04:02:18Z flavorjones-extens.. de943189aa) [x86_64-linux] Warming up -------------------------------------- disabled, warn=false 490.143k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- disabled, warn=false 4.863M (± 1.5%) i/s - 49.014M in 10.081177s ruby 3.1.0dev (2021-06-25T04:02:18Z flavorjones-extens.. de943189aa) [x86_64-linux] Warming up -------------------------------------- disabled, warn=true 483.070k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- disabled, warn=true 4.839M (± 1.4%) i/s - 48.790M in 10.083899s Comparison: disabled, warn=false: 4863064.0 i/s disabled, warn=true: 4839310.1 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error ruby 3.1.0dev (2021-06-25T04:02:18Z flavorjones-extens.. de943189aa) [x86_64-linux] Warming up -------------------------------------- enabled, warn=false 484.398k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- enabled, warn=false 4.840M (± 1.9%) i/s - 48.440M in 10.011854s Comparison: disabled, warn=false: 4863064.0 i/s enabled, warn=false: 4840123.2 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error disabled, warn=true: 4839310.1 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error ruby 3.1.0dev (2021-06-25T04:02:18Z flavorjones-extens.. de943189aa) [x86_64-linux] Warming up -------------------------------------- enabled, warn=true 492.200k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- enabled, warn=true 4.866M (± 2.1%) i/s - 48.728M in 10.017455s Comparison: enabled, warn=true: 4866434.8 i/s disabled, warn=false: 4863064.0 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error enabled, warn=false: 4840123.2 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error disabled, warn=true: 4839310.1 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error ``` My conclusion is that the performance impact is very small, and we could omit the option if the Ruby core maintainers decide this behavior should be on by default.