Right now memory_get[peak_]usage() show the amount of REAL memory that PHP
(Zend Memory Manager) takes from system.
Previous memory manager showed size of emalloc()-ed memory without malloc()
overhead.
Also it didn't consider internal caches.
We need decide which behavior to use before 5.2.0 rele
Hi,
After looking through the new Memory Manager code, I assumed this would be
the case... (and just now got to test). Since heap->size is only updated
when a 256K or whatever block is *actually* allocated/freed, the number
returned by memory_get_usage() will only be a multiple of that. That
doe
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The first release candidate of PHP 5.2.0 is finally out
cool thing
and the source packages can be found here:
http://downloads.php.net/ilia/php-5.2.0RC1.tar.bz2
(fa36d378f7f1fd547b881b6323ae2c60)
merci bien , we need it.
Given the long time it took to make this RC t
Windows build is available at the following locations:
Main distibution:
http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-5.2.0RC1-Win32.zip
PECL collection:
http://downloads.php.net/edink/pecl-5.2.0RC1-Win32.zip
Debug pack:
http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-debug-pack-5.2.0RC1-Win32.zip
Edin
Ilia Alshan
Just to make sure any internals folks in Portland this week don't miss
it, a quick note to remind you to come out to the Portland PHP usergroup
meeting on Thursday night this week. And invite anyone interested in
PHP to come along. No need to be an OSCON attendee to come out.
Details are at:
Andrei Zmievski schrieb:
> Why don't you help fix the fileupload code in HEAD then?
Quite simply because I cannot do 100 things at the same time.
The last 2 weeks I was busy and most time not at home at all.
During the next days I will have to write several PHP extensions
and if I after that I can
The first release candidate of PHP 5.2.0 is finally out and the source packages can be found here:http://downloads.php.net/ilia/php-5.2.0RC1.tar.bz2 (fa36d378f7f1fd547b881b6323ae2c60)http://downloads.php.net/ilia/php-5.2.0RC1.tar.gz (e217195c90e123acce0c2f71ac07f88d)The windows binaries should be a
Actually Todd, ...
> There is no way to call a function
> before doing the work in the argument list. If I call f(1+2),
> I can be sure the computation to get 3 will be performed
> _before_ calling f. The issue with f($p=array()) is that
> "$p=array()" is an r-value.
...that is theoretically ve
in that case, the documentation on socket_select() needs to be edited:
http://www.php.net/socket-select says:
0) {
/* At least at one of the sockets something interesting happened */
}
?>
according to you, $write and $except could be undefined, right?
- Ron
"Johannes Schlueter" <[EMAIL PR
Hi John,
Good work :)
Any chance you could publish the WiX files for this?
I haven't tried it yet, but based on the comments of others, and
experience of my own with WiX in a complex product, here are my
comments :-)
- I think we have way too many PHP extensions to make a checkbox
installation
Why don't you help fix the fileupload code in HEAD then?
-Andrei
On Jul 23, 2006, at 3:39 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Commiting to HEAD is not possible. How often do I have to tell that.
Because of the unicode changes the patch has to be majorly rewritten.
Additionally it is simply impossible to
Fixed now.
-Andrei
On Jul 24, 2006, at 12:52 AM, Matt W wrote:
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "bertrand Gugger"
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006
Matt W wrote:
Hi Andrei,
I see you applied my patch.
Testing with a php5.2-200607222030 snaps having
/* $Id: array.c,v 1.308.2.21.2.7 2006
Hi John
1) I didn't notice anywhere to choose the path for the install. (This
might
be because I only tested with cli?) That makes it kinda hard to figure
out
where the installed version went :) I eventually found it in PROGRA~1,
which
might be the default for registry-based installations but
On 7/24/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Default install options; what should the default install consist of?
I'd say it should contain all of the extensions that are enabled by-default.
I have it set that way by default now, so if everyone is comfortable
with that then we c
It looks like
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.operators.assignment.php
could use a bit of updating. A paragraph about php 5 or a
link to the semantics changes for php 5 would help newbies.
The text about php4 says there is copy on assignment, which
implies a performance hit for using = inste
imo, this would probably the easiest and best way to handle the conversions.
Rob
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Maybe. An alternate way would be to add modifier to 's' that makes it
accept a converter to use for conversion.
if (zend_parse_parameters(ZEND_NUM_ARGS() TSRMLS_CC, "s>", &str,
&str_len, U
Hi,
On Monday 24 July 2006 17:52, Rishad Omar wrote:
> getArray($p = array());
Here you are relying on undefined behavior. It is not defined wether $p =
array() or the function call getarray($p) should be executed first so the
order might always change.
You should always use the two lines
-- Forwarded message --
From: John Mertic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 24, 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New Installer for PHP 5.2
To: Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 7/24/06, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) I didn't notice anywhere to choose the path for the ins
Hello Nuno,
i think this is a good idea and i suggest that we drop the static from
those extensions. The question is whether we need new macros for non static
cases and hope we don't.
best regards
marcus
Monday, July 24, 2006, 9:48:29 AM, you wrote:
> Hello,
> I was wondering if we could mak
Hello,
I was wondering if we could make ZEND_FUNCTION() declaration static. This
represents a compatibility break with previous PHP versions, but only
extensions that already declare the function as static would be affected.
Declaring a function as static (or anything else) decreases load time
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 24-Jul-06, at 10:52 AM, John Mertic wrote:
- Lite Installer. The current install file weighs in at 18mb. Would we
want a lite installer with fewer components and if so what would those
be?
I think if the 1st is done the size of the file should be much
smaller, if no
On Monday 24 July 2006 10:52, Rishad Omar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've upgraded from 5.1.1 to 5.1.2 and discovered the following
> unexpected difference. Best shown by example.
>
> function getArray(&$arr)
> {
> $arr[] = 12;
> }
>
> getArray($p = array());
> print_r($p);
>
Hi John,
I looked at this already (bless irc) and it looks great.. chm manual
option's a nice touch :)
The main questions I have about it are:
1) I didn't notice anywhere to choose the path for the install. (This might
be because I only tested with cli?) That makes it kinda hard to figure ou
Hello,
I've upgraded from 5.1.1 to 5.1.2 and discovered the following
unexpected difference. Best shown by example.
In php 5.1.1, the $p is passed correctly as reference and so returns
with the value 12 in its first element. I regard this as correct behaviour.
In php 5.1.2, the $p is passe
John Mertic wrote:
- Lite Installer. The current install file weighs in at 18mb. Would we
want a lite installer with fewer components and if so what would those
be?
So what is included over the 2.7Mb of the existing 5.1.4 installer?
( I presume there is no plan to remove the more useful zip f
On 24-Jul-06, at 10:52 AM, John Mertic wrote:
Thanks to Edin Kadribasic, the public test version ( which installs a
recent snapshot of PHP 5.2 ) is located at
http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-5.2.0-win32-installer.msi.
I am looking for feedback on the installer, namely in the following
are
Hi there,
With the guidance of Phil Driscoll, I have put together a new
installer for PHP on Windows. It replicates much of the same
functionality of his installer, but also boasts the following
features:
- Selective installation of all PHP components ( CGI and CLI exes,
server modules, standard
Andi Gutmans wrote:
For constructors it actually makes sense because at the time of
instantiaton, you know what the concrete class is. It is very common for
constructors to be very much different in polymorphic classes.
What about factory methods? It makes sense there too.
I could also imagine
On 24-Jul-06, at 4:38 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
I reviewed the code and as far as I can tell it works fine.
Certainly,
some sort of an earlier courtesy notice to the RM would've been nice,
but as Rasmus said this is till before RC1, so do I don't see a
problem with th
So this then means bundling more extensions by default and / or
better marketing.
What is the issue with simply not bundling all
known-to-be-good/stable/current extensions?
Admittedly, file size would be up. But I don't really see that as an issue.
As a windows user, I would just want them all
Matt W wrote:
Sure, but I was meaning , in so far you extend the functionality of
number_format , then you will need to extend the doc.
Some draft of this doc extension would be usefull , even in this test
phase and especially for "userland" people.
Oh, I see. I don't know anything about cha
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
> I reviewed the code and as far as I can tell it works fine. Certainly,
> some sort of an earlier courtesy notice to the RM would've been nice,
> but as Rasmus said this is till before RC1, so do I don't see a
> problem with the patch's inclusion. That said, if it becomes
Matt W wrote:
Nope, it's broken. :-)
Thx to confirm the report ,
It's old linux here , so maybe it's related.
I did a full report of the whole run-tests with the snap from 06:30 this
morning and this minimal build.
(attached for complements of info)
off topic:
As recommended (7 other fail
Hi bertrand,
- Original Message -
From: "bertrand Gugger"
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006
> Matt W wrote:
> > Hi,
> >>Give some basic userland examples about what you propose to change,
> >>please ...
> >>(I guess these are a part of the .phpt)
> >
> > In the .phpt file, it is userland code
Hi Gwynne,
- Original Message -
From: "Gwynne"
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006
> On Jul 23, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Matt W wrote:
> >> While we're on the subject, one of my favorite personal patches to
> >> PHP is one that adds the %n specifier. The parameter to %n is a
> >> reference which recie
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "bertrand Gugger"
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006
> Matt W wrote:
> > Hi Andrei,
> >
> > I see you applied my patch.
> Testing with a php5.2-200607222030 snaps having
> /* $Id: array.c,v 1.308.2.21.2.7 2006/07/22 16:58:39 andrei Exp $ */
>
> Looks by me as the
Either way, is it worth committing the patch ?
1 - For the non-optimizing compilers.
2 - Consistency across all source - static string use sizeof() rather
than strlen() +1
If so, I'll need to amend the patch to NOT use +1, though judging by
the comments made by bertrand Gugger, maybe something n
37 matches
Mail list logo
