Hi Andrei,
I see you applied my patch. However, the 5.2 code still isn't binary-key
safe (you only changed the second occurrence of add_assoc_zval to the _ex
version). Or was that intentional and you only want to change the behavior
in 6?
And you know 5.2's description is still wrong -- with "keys" at the end
instead of "values"? :-) When you changed that part in HEAD last week, you
also added a "the" -- "... as _the_ corresponding _values_" -- which was in
my patch, if you want both branches *exactly* the same. :-P
Matt
P.S. The other patch you're talking about below... I think Richard Quadling
said he'll do it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrei Zmievski"
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006
> Yeah, that's probably a good idea. You can submit a patch if you
> want. :)
>
> -Andrei
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2006, at 6:04 AM, Matt W wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I think I've seen those instances that you're referring to. By
> > fixed length
> > string I assume you mean hard-coded "string_key". Yeah, I would
> > think those
> > should use add_assoc_*_ex() since the length is known (sizeof
> > ("string_key")
> > etc.) to save unnecessary strlen() calls.
> >
> > Unless compilers optimize the strlen("string_key") + 1 to a
> > constant from
> > the add_assoc_*() macro. But I wouldn't think that's the case...? :-/
> >
> >
> > Matt
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
