Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
We have ltmain.sh in our cvs. It is from an old libtool and not
compatible with newer libtools. Specifically the shared_ext is not
defined so we end up generating libraries without the .so extension.
A simple rm ltmain.sh && libtoo
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > We have ltmain.sh in our cvs. It is from an old libtool and not compatible
> > with newer libtools. Specifically the shared_ext is not defined so we end
> > up
> > generating libraries without the .so e
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
We have ltmain.sh in our cvs. It is from an old libtool and not compatible
with newer libtools. Specifically the shared_ext is not defined so we end up
generating libraries without the .so extension.
A simple rm ltmain.sh && libtoolize --force fixes it
We have ltmain.sh in our cvs. It is from an old libtool and not
compatible with newer libtools. Specifically the shared_ext is not
defined so we end up generating libraries without the .so extension.
A simple rm ltmain.sh && libtoolize --force fixes it, but is there
anything stopping us from e
Hans Zaunere wrote:
I know apache_hooks but after discussion with George and others, I
wouldn't feel comfortable recommending to clients, especially with
EXPERIMENTAL notes and no mention on php.net. The potential
functionality it could provide, however, would be very popular, on par
with mod_rewr
Short update:
Seems there are 2-3 bugs that need attending so I think it'll take about a
week to 10 days for an RC1.
Andi
At 05:50 PM 12/29/2004 -0800, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Ilia and I decided to roll in the beginning of January when people are
back from vacation and we get some beta testers. We c
On Dec 30, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Hans Zaunere wrote:
That has nothing to do with Apache2 and has been available for Apache1
for years. It just isn't a very popular feature. See the
apache_hooks
code.
I know apache_hooks but after discussion with George and others, I
wouldn't feel comfortable recomme
> > That presents somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem. Production
sites
> > won't be compelled to make a move until PHP recommends it in some
way,
> > or if there is a killer feature that pulls people in, regardless of
the
> > perceived stability.
>
> Right, and they shouldn't. If there is no
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I don't feel like arguing about it because hasMethod() is good enough
> for me.
Do we not need hasProperty() (for getProperty()) and hasConstant() (for
getConstant()), too?
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69
i have a question about muli-threaded PHP. I have a few custom
extentions I am loading, everything works great in the main thread, if
I spawn a new thread, my extentions are still loaded and active, but
thier functions don't get loaded int the function table for the
secondary thread. is there s
I have a pending patch I would like to get into the 5 branch, but which
fix is applied depends upon wether or not
zend_fetch_property_address_inner and zend_fetch_property_address are
going to fall back to read_property if get_property_ptr_ptr returns
NULL. Just need an answer to get that sorte
My bad, sorry for wasting your time.
Ron
"Stefan Esser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello,
>
> this issue was already cleared as bogus
>
> safe_emalloc already takes care of the one extra byte that should get
added.
>
> safe_emalloc does allocate param1 * par
Hello,
this issue was already cleared as bogus
safe_emalloc already takes care of the one extra byte that should get added.
safe_emalloc does allocate param1 * param2 + param3 bytes
result = (unsigned char *)safe_emalloc(((length + 2) / 3) * 4, sizeof(char),
1);
would become
result = (unsigned ch
Forgot to add that in my specific case valgrind mentioned an illegal read
and write of 1 byte.
Ron
"Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Do you have a patch which you think should be applied? If not, can you
send
> a reproducing script (a short one). Maybe
A patch (I'm not familiar with the normal protocol) would simply be to
increase the allocated size by 1:
result = (unsigned char *)safe_emalloc(((length + 2) / 3) * 4, sizeof(char),
1);
would become
result = (unsigned char *)safe_emalloc(((length + 2) / 3) * 4 + 1,
sizeof(char), 1);
But I must
15 matches
Mail list logo
