Please don't even think of backporting. This will definitely break a
lot of things, and this kind of thing must not be done in a minor
release.
Moriyoshi
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky <i...@prohost.org> wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
> Does it make sense to backport 42868 fix to address this issue?
>
>
> On 12-Feb-09, at 3:56 PM, Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
>
>> See the results of the following on 5.2.6, 5.2.9rc2 and 5.3:
>>
>> php -r '$a[1e100] = 1; var_dump($a);'
>>
>> 5.2.6:
>> array(1) {
>> [-2147483648]=>
>> int(1)
>> }
>>
>> 5.2.9rc2:
>> array(1) {
>> [-1]=>
>> int(1)
>> }
>>
>> 5.3:
>> array(1) {
>> [2147483647]=>
>> int(1)
>> }
>>
>> I doubt the result of 5.2.9rc2 is quite what we expect, and this
>> problem should be addressed in 5.3 with the 5.2's behavior unchanged.
>>
>> Moriyoshi
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Moriyoshi Koizumi <m...@mozo.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> I guess the patch relies on the 5.3's DVAL_TO_LVAL behavior that was
>>> changed by the fix for bug #42868, right?
>>> If so, this patch shouldn't be MFH'ed as the #42868 patch was not
>>> merged although I didn't remember any discussion on this.
>>>
>>> See also: http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=120799720922202&w=2
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Moriyoshi
>>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>
> Ilia Alshanetsky
>
>
>
>
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
