> Quoting Josh Fuhs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If I'm not mistaken, Java does not allow calls to static methods via
> object instances.
Sorry, I retract this. Someone just showed me an example of it.
But it still seems like a bad practice.
Josh
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing Li
On Monday, Feb 23, 2004, at 00:23 Europe/Copenhagen, Sterling Hughes
wrote:
At 00:23 23/02/2004 +0100, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 23:57 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans
wrote:
Can someone check this on a non-intel CPU with a 32bit int?
gcc 3.3 produces the same warning (t
> At 00:23 23/02/2004 +0100, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 23:57 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >>Can someone check this on a non-intel CPU with a 32bit int?
> >
> >gcc 3.3 produces the same warning (this decimal constant is unsigned only
> >in ISO C90) on Powe
At 00:23 23/02/2004 +0100, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 23:57 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Can someone check this on a non-intel CPU with a 32bit int?
gcc 3.3 produces the same warning (this decimal constant is unsigned only
in ISO C90) on PowerPC G4. The code prod
On Sunday, Feb 22, 2004, at 23:57 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Can someone check this on a non-intel CPU with a 32bit int?
gcc 3.3 produces the same warning (this decimal constant is unsigned
only in ISO C90) on PowerPC G4. The code produces no floating point
exceptions though. c at the
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 23:49 22/02/2004 +0100, Michael Walter wrote:
No, -2147483648 is the lower bound and 2147483647 is the upper bound for
signed integers.
-2147483648 = 1000
2147483647 = 0111
it still doesn't explain the FPE here. What d
Sterling Hughes wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Feb 22, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
Did you notice your compiler w
At 23:49 22/02/2004 +0100, Michael Walter wrote:
No, -2147483648 is the lower bound and 2147483647 is the upper bound for
signed integers.
-2147483648 = 1000
2147483647 = 0111
it still doesn't explain the FPE here. What does explain it is th
> George Schlossnagle wrote:
> >
> >On Feb 22, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
> >>>result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
> >>>
> >>>Did you notice
George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Feb 22, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
Did you notice your compiler warning "this decimal const
Derick Rethans wrote:
>> [embarassing mistake]
No, -2147483648 is the lower bound and 2147483647 is the upper bound for
signed integers.
Yes of course.
-2147483648 = 1000
2147483647 = 0111
it still doesn't explain the FPE here. What does exp
On Feb 22, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
Did you notice your compiler warning "this decimal constant is
unsigned
only in IS
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's generating an idivl, which gives you an exception if the (signed)
> result is too large (a.k.a. integer overflow).
>
> Did you notice your compiler warning "this decimal constant is unsigned
> only in ISO C90"? ;)
Yes I did
> +2147483648 is: 10
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Huh? What platform crashes? Can you send reproducible C code?
>>
>>int main(void) {
>>long a = -2147483648;
>>long b = -1;
>>long c;
>>
>>c = a % b;
>>}
>
>
> D
On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 21:49, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
[...]
> Does anybody has a clue *why* this gives a floating point error btw?
Works fine with GCC 3.2.2, GCC 2.95.4 spits out "Internal compiler error
in `float_signal', at toplev.c:2442", which I pasted
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Michael Spector wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > >
> > > > Huh? What platform crashes? Can you send reproducible C code?
> > >
> > > int main(void) {
> >
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >
> > > Huh? What platform crashes? Can you send reproducible C code?
> >
> > int main(void) {
> > long a = -2147483648;
> > long b = -1;
> > long c
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Huh? What platform crashes? Can you send reproducible C code?
>
> int main(void) {
> long a = -2147483648;
> long b = -1;
> long c;
>
> c = a % b;
> }
Does anybody has a clue *why* this giv
Hi,
Can I please ask your opinion about this bug:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=27097
Its because the manual says integer in protos and sometimes its a long.
Nuno
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Josh,
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 6:44:14 AM, you wrote:
> Sorry, mis-click.
> Quoting Josh Fuhs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If I'm not mistaken, Java does not allow calls to static methods via object
>> instances. It simply doesn't make sense to couple the unecessary object
>> instance
>> int
Learn PHP & Use PHP.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hello Derick,
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 6:03:28 PM, you wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Erik Franzén wrote:
>> With this behavior you force the developer to use the exception class.
>> You cannot use your own class because PHP will trigger an error if you do.
>>
>> However, you can o
Christian Stocker wrote:
> too bad, will try to find a solution for libxml2 < 2.6
What is the problem with requiring the version of libxml2 that is
current when PHP 5 comes out?
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Das Buch zu PHP 5
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:44:43PM +0100, Erik Franzén wrote :
> Markus Fischer wrote:
> >The catch-all helps catching any type of exception, _given that_ it
> >is derived from class Exception. The motivation behind it, and this
> >makes sense to me, I'm pro this behaviour, is, that th
Sorry Ilia, but it isn't. Your change only sets the parameter to 0 when you
specify an invalid threshold.
When you don't specify the threshold, it will throw a warning because the
default is -1 (invalid).
Nuno
> This is already addressed in CVS.
>
> Ilia
>
> On February 22, 2004 06:12 am, Nuno L
This is already addressed in CVS.
Ilia
On February 22, 2004 06:12 am, Nuno Lopes wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is a small patch to fix a warning in image2wbmp() when you call that
> function without the optional parameters.
>
>
> Nuno
>
>
> -
> reproduce script:
> $image = ima
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Erik Franzén wrote:
> With this behavior you force the developer to use the exception class.
> You cannot use your own class because PHP will trigger an error if you do.
>
> However, you can of course extend the exception class with your own
> class, but you canno
Markus Fischer wrote:
The catch-all helps catching any type of exception, _given that_ it
is derived from class Exception. The motivation behind it, and this
makes sense to me, I'm pro this behaviour, is, that this way the
interface of the Exception class is well defined. You can al
This was never resolved:
Is this, or is this not a bug:
class A
{
var $a;
}
$A = new A;
$A->a = array(1);
$array = &$A->a;
$clone = clone $A;
$clone->a = array(); //Affects a in $A.
print_r($A);
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net
Also, direct usage of classnames should be allowed, and in this case,
the usual syntax should be used.
ClassName->staticMethod();
On 22 Feb 2004, at 12:30 AM, Josh Fuhs wrote:
$stringName::staticMethod();
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://ww
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 03:36:49PM +0100, Erik Franzén wrote :
> I am prototyping on a PHP5 application using PEAR and I ran into a
> strange error.
>
> if (PEAR::isError($mReturn)) {
>throw $mReturn;
> }
>
> PEAR is not configured to return exceptions instead of PEAR Errors and
> the abov
I am prototyping on a PHP5 application using PEAR and I ran into a
strange error.
if (PEAR::isError($mReturn)) {
throw $mReturn;
}
PEAR is not configured to return exceptions instead of PEAR Errors and
the above code will generate the following error if $mReturn is a PEAR
Error.
PHP Fatal e
Hello,
Here is a small patch to fix a warning in image2wbmp() when you call that
function without the optional parameters.
Nuno
-
reproduce script:
Index: gd.c
===
RCS file: /repository/php-src/ext/gd/gd.c
33 matches
Mail list logo
