PHP-5.6 is frozen for new features for a long time.
Adding new features after RC is not a good idea.
And we will need some kind of RFC and voting.
I help you technically, but you know my opinion about this feature..
anyway, lets fix bugs first, I got an idea that may work...
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Am 23.7.2014 um 11:34 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>:
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes. Did you see my thoughts before?
>
> I'm just wondering if we can't somehow deeply copy the asts for opcache
>
> between compile time and run time in pass_two() (If I'm not wrong
> pass_two() has some hook for zend extensions?)
>
> Then we can fix the ast and don't have to take care of opcache at run
> time (= when the (dynamic) asts will be evaluated). It'd maybe even be a
> bit faster as it then doesn't have to copy so much at run-time.
>
>
> ^ these?
>
>
> Yes, I saw, but it not always possible. At least some pointers to AST are
> kept in shared memory. So AST may not be duplicated at all.
>
>
> Not sure, but I think that each AST actually has maximum one pointer to it
> after compilation time.
> We actually don't need to refcount ASTs, so I think it's safe to just e.g.
> create a HashTable with which AST is linked to which zval pointer?
>
> I'm also not very happy with it.
> I think I just should remove that restriction of run-time completely. It's
> just causing more confusion than it helps…
> I don't even remember why I even added that restriction there.
>
>
> It was a restriction to not support arrays in constant context. It seems
> like nobody can remember why it was introduced.
> However, I think it's too dangerous to break it in last minute before
> release.
> Actually, you already broke it, and just prohibited usage at run-time.
>
>
> Actually, it's not yet *last minute*, AFAIK, we're still having another RC
> after this bug fix.
> It is actually safe to remove that restriction. (I've tested it already).
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
>
> Bob
>
> Am 23.7.2014 um 10:47 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>:
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey, thank you for looking into it :-)
>
> Am 23.7.2014 um 00:23 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>:
>
> hi Bob,
>
> I still think that current array usage in constant expressions is not
> consistent and dangerous. It "smells" to me, and I think it may bring
> troubles in the future even if the existing known bugs are fixed.
>
> I see few issues:
>
> 1) It is possible to declare array class constants however they can't be
> used. I can't remember why array in constants were prohibited before and
> what problems they brought. The following script works without any
>
> warnings.
>
>
> <?php
> class Foo {
> const BAR = [1];
> }
> ?>
>
>
> Because it's actually valid. You don't use it in non-static scalar
> context.
>
> 2) In some cases array constants may be used, but not in the others.
>
> <?php
> class Foo {
> const BAR = [0];
> static $a = Foo::BAR; // constant array usage
> }
> var_dump(Foo::$a); // prints array
> var_dump(Foo::BAR); // emits fatal error
> ?>
>
>
> They can only be used in static scalar contexts.
>
> I wanted to introduce constants to be used and dereferenced also at
> run-time, but that requires a RFC.
> If anyone would allow me to introduce that still now (it'd be a
> relatively simple patch), I'll happily do it.
> The issue just was that I was a bit late to create a RFC (beta freeze
> etc...)
>
> 3) The fact that constants are allowed in compile time and even stored,
>
> but
>
> can't be used confuses me as well as the error message "PHP Fatal error:
> Arrays are not allowed in constants at run-time".
>
>
> See above...
>
>
> Yeah all the issues above (1-3) are actually a single inconsistency.
> You may find it logical, but I think differently.
>
>
> 4) Zend/tests/constant_expressions_arrays.phpt crashes whit
>
> opcache.protect_memory=1 (that indicates petential SHM memory
>
> corruption)
>
>
> This may be fixed with the following patch:
>
> diff --git a/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h b/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h
> index 144930e..f1aab9a 100644
> --- a/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h
> +++ b/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h
> @@ -4323,6 +4323,16 @@ static int ZEND_FASTCALL
> ZEND_DECLARE_CONST_SPEC_CONST_CONST_HANDLER(ZEND_OPCOD
> c.value = *tmp_ptr;
> } else {
> INIT_PZVAL_COPY(&c.value, val);
> + if (Z_TYPE(c.value) == IS_ARRAY) {
> + HashTable *ht;
> +
> + ALLOC_HASHTABLE(ht);
> + zend_hash_init(ht,
> zend_hash_num_elements(Z_ARRVAL(c.value)), NULL, ZVAL_PTR_DTOR, 0);
> + zend_hash_copy(ht, Z_ARRVAL(c.value),
> (copy_ctor_func_t) zval_deep_copy, NULL, sizeof(zval *));
> + Z_ARRVAL(c.value) = ht;
> + } else {
> + zval_copy_ctor(&c.value);
> + }
> zval_copy_ctor(&c.value);
> }
> c.flags = CONST_CS; /* non persistent, case sensetive */
>
>
> I assume you wanted to patch zend_vm_def.h, not zend_vm_execute.h.
>
>
> Yes. Of course.
>
>
> If you can fix it, please apply the patch, I'm not so deep into opcache
> to take responsibility for that one.
>
>
> OK. This part of the patch must be safe. I'll apply it later.
>
>
>
> 5) Circular constant references crash (found by Nikita)
>
> <?php
> class A {
> const FOO = [self::BAR];
> const BAR = [self::FOO];
> }
> var_dump(A::FOO); // crashes because of infinity recursion
> ?>
>
>
> That isn't a specific problems with arrays:
>
> <?php
> class test {
> const BAR = 0 + self::FOO;
> const FOO = 0 + self::BAR;
> }
> var_dump(test::BAR);
>
> just segfaults too because of the exact same issue
>
>
> Oh... This is really bad.
> It means we have a general AST evaluation problem.
> It must be fixed before 5.6 release.
> I'll try to make another attempt in the evening today or tomorrow.
>
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
>
>
> I didn't find any useful way to fix it. One of the ideas with following
> hack seemed to work, but it breaks another test
> (Zend/tests/constant_expressions_classes.phpt)
>
> diff --git a/Zend/zend_ast.c b/Zend/zend_ast.c
> index 12f9405..8798737 100644
> --- a/Zend/zend_ast.c
> +++ b/Zend/zend_ast.c
> @@ -251,10 +251,22 @@ ZEND_API void zend_ast_evaluate(zval *result,
> zend_ast *ast, zend_class_entry *s
> zval_dtor(&op2);
> break;
> case ZEND_CONST:
> - *result = *ast->u.val;
> - zval_copy_ctor(result);
> - if (IS_CONSTANT_TYPE(Z_TYPE_P(result))) {
> - zval_update_constant_ex(&result, 1,
>
> scope
>
> TSRMLS_CC);
> + if (EG(in_execution) && EG(opline_ptr) &&
> *EG(opline_ptr) &&
> + ((*EG(opline_ptr))->opcode ==
>
> ZEND_RECV_INIT ||
>
> + (*EG(opline_ptr))->opcode ==
> ZEND_DECLARE_CONST)) {
> + *result = *ast->u.val;
> + zval_copy_ctor(result);
> + if (IS_CONSTANT_TYPE(Z_TYPE_P(result)))
>
> {
>
> +
>
> zval_update_constant_ex(&result, 1,
>
> scope TSRMLS_CC);
> + }
> + } else {
> + if
>
> (IS_CONSTANT_TYPE(Z_TYPE_P(ast->u.val)))
>
> {
> +
> zval_update_constant_ex(&ast->u.val, 1, scope TSRMLS_CC);
> + *result = *ast->u.val;
> + } else {
> + *result = *ast->u.val;
> + zval_copy_ctor(result);
> + }
> }
> break;
> case ZEND_BOOL_AND:
>
> I spent few hours trying to find a solution, but failed. May be my ideas
> could lead you to something...
>
> Otherwise, I would recommend to remove this feature from PHP-5.6.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Now I think it's not fixable by design :(
>
> I'll try to think about it later today.
> Could you please collect all related issues.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Am 2.7.2014 um 15:43 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>:
>
> I don't have good ideas out of the box and I probably won't be able to
> look into this before next week.
>
>
> Hey, I still have no real idea how to solve it without breaking
>
> opcache.
>
>
> This one seems to be considered like a blocking bug for 5.6.
>
> Could you please try to fix this in a sane manner?
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
