Code size report:

   bare-arm:    +8 +0.014% 
minimal x86:   +16 +0.009% 
   unix x64:   +32 +0.004% standard
      stm32:   +16 +0.004% PYBV10
     mimxrt:    +8 +0.002% TEENSY40
        rp2:    +8 +0.001% RPI_PICO_W
       samd:    +8 +0.003% ADAFRUIT_ITSYBITSY_M4_EXPRESS

Does this still work when super() is used in the __init__ of a function derived from a "native" type?

If I'm remembering correctly, there are some complications with this, like those discussed in #9997.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.43%. Comparing base (d1bf0ee) to head (093d0c0).

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #12918   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.43%   98.43%           
=======================================
  Files         161      161           
  Lines       21277    21279    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits        20944    20946    +2     
  Misses        333      333           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Should be the case yes, because for

class A(str):
    def __init__(self):
        super().__init__()

A()

the new code (i.e. super_make_new) isn't actually called, and calling it by super(str, A()) and super(str, A) the new version does identify correctly that it's proper usage; but do you have a more concrete usecase to test maybe?

the new code (i.e. super_make_new) isn't actually called,

Ah, this is what I was wondering about. So, yeah, not a problem.

but do you have a more concrete usecase to test maybe?

Not related to my previous comments, but it looks like we don't have any tests that call super(A, self).__init__() which seems like a normal thing someone might try to do.

This is an automated heads-up that we've just merged a Pull Request
that removes the STATIC macro from MicroPython's C API.

See #13763

A search suggests this PR might apply the STATIC macro to some C code. If it
does, then next time you rebase the PR (or merge from master) then you should
please replace all the STATIC keywords with static.

Although this is an automated message, feel free to @-reply to me directly if
you have any questions about this.

Rebased on master and tweaked the implementation to reduce code size (calling mp_obj_get_type unconditionally once, instead of mp_obj_is_type and then conditionally mp_obj_get_type).