This reminds me: why do we have constant value as a regular zval instead of zval*? On every constant fetch we are invoking a copy constructor and that can add up in applications that use a lot of constants, PEAR-based ones especially. I don't see any compeling architectural reason for it. Andi, Zeev?
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Andrei Zmievski wrote: > andrei Wed May 26 17:02:12 2004 EDT > > Modified files: (Branch: PHP_4_3) > /Zend zend_constants.c > Log: > Make sure zend_get_constant() result is initialized properly. > > > http://cvs.php.net/diff.php/Zend/zend_constants.c?r1=1.42.2.4&r2=1.42.2.5&ty=u > Index: Zend/zend_constants.c > diff -u Zend/zend_constants.c:1.42.2.4 Zend/zend_constants.c:1.42.2.5 > --- Zend/zend_constants.c:1.42.2.4 Wed May 26 16:50:51 2004 > +++ Zend/zend_constants.c Wed May 26 17:02:12 2004 > @@ -237,6 +237,8 @@ > if (retval) { > *result = c->value; > zval_copy_ctor(result); > + result->is_ref = 0; > + result->refcount = 1; > } > > return retval; > > -- > Zend Engine CVS Mailing List (http://cvs.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php - Andrei -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
