mirror of
https://github.com/pybind/pybind11.git
synced 2024-11-22 13:15:12 +00:00
Added warning about same-address-optimization
See https://github.com/pybind/pybind11/issues/254
This commit is contained in:
parent
2353b9b8fa
commit
717df75237
@ -468,7 +468,7 @@ functions. The default policy is :enum:`return_value_policy::automatic`.
|
||||
| :enum:`return_value_policy::take_ownership` | Reference an existing object (i.e. do not create a new copy) and take |
|
||||
| | ownership. Python will call the destructor and delete operator when the |
|
||||
| | object's reference count reaches zero. Undefined behavior ensues when the |
|
||||
| | C++ side does the same.. |
|
||||
| | C++ side does the same. |
|
||||
+--------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| :enum:`return_value_policy::copy` | Create a new copy of the returned object, which will be owned by Python. |
|
||||
| | This policy is comparably safe because the lifetimes of the two instances |
|
||||
@ -526,6 +526,15 @@ The following example snippet shows a use case of the
|
||||
non-determinism and segmentation faults, hence it is worth spending the
|
||||
time to understand all the different options in the table above.
|
||||
|
||||
.. warning::
|
||||
|
||||
pybind11 tries to eliminate duplicate addresses by returning the same reference object.
|
||||
If two addresses are the same, though they do not point to the same object semantically,
|
||||
this may cause unexpected behaviour. An explicit policy should be used instead of
|
||||
relying on `automatic`.
|
||||
A common example is a reference to the first member of a class which has the same memory
|
||||
location as its owning class.
|
||||
|
||||
.. note::
|
||||
|
||||
The next section on :ref:`call_policies` discusses *call policies* that can be
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user