Good idea, but it allows only memory_get_usage() and not
memory_get_peek_usage() :(
Dmitry.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 5:43 AM
> To: 'Ilia Alshanetsky'; 'Ron Korving'
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: RE: [PHP-
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 27-Jul-06, at 9:03 AM, bertrand Gugger wrote:
That may hear off topic , but how you enable something else than 8M
*without* getting this counting overhead ?
Eh? When you set a limit what are you trying to do? From my experience
most of the time this setting i
I personally think that we should keep the more accurate behavior both
because it's the most accurate and what most people would expect when
setting memory limits, and because it does allow us to always enable
memory-limit code due to the significantly smaller overhead of keeping
count.
If some peo
English texts follow Japanese.
国際技術情報センター株式会社
代表取締役 藤瀬幹夫
TEL: 03-5914-1360 FAX: 03-5914-1361
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.itic.co.jp/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 宛にご連絡ください。
internals@lists.php.net 様
拝啓
貴社ますますご清栄のこととお慶び申し上げます。
弊社は、技術分野の翻訳を得意としております。翻訳を必要とされる際は、是非、弊社のホームページ、URL: http://www.i
Hi,
Happened to notice this. Only in 5.2.
Thanks,
MattIndex: ext/standard/array.c
===
RCS file: /repository/php-src/ext/standard/array.c,v
retrieving revision 1.308.2.21.2.8
diff -u -r1.308.2.21.2.8 array.c
--- ext/standard/array.c
Thank you all for the last 6 years or so. It has been fun (sometimes)
and many times not so much fun. Unfortunately I have had enough and
I don't want to be associated with this project anymore.
I'm sure most people (the ones who matter) can understand why.
If someone doesn't
Yep. After thoughting about it, I think it is the best way. If the user
wants to save the unicode directly (and save BOM, etc), he has functions to
handle that.
So, I've just changed the 's' parameters to 'S' (binary only). I left the
ob_start handler for Mike since he said he wanted to help wit
So you decide to make the user pass in a binary string explicitly. I
suppose that's an approach since it makes them think about what
format the binary string should be in before it's compressed.
-Andrei
On Jul 27, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote:
Nuno Lopes wrote:
Hello,
So Andrei as
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Given that there is significant interest, and no objection, I'll
> commit this later today. Are any of trunk / 5.2 or 4.4 branches
> frozen right now?
You can't add it to the 4.4 branch now, you'll have to wait until after
the 4.4.3 release.
r
On 27-Jul-06, at 1:17 PM, Ron Korving wrote:
Yes, hosting providers would enable the memory limit. But who wants
to use
memory_get_[peak_]usage()? Not the hosting provider, but the
application
developer.
The peak usage function was added with profiling in mind and keeping
track of scri
Yes, hosting providers would enable the memory limit. But who wants to use
memory_get_[peak_]usage()? Not the hosting provider, but the application
developer.
We have some process, that if cache has gotten stale and needs to be
recreated, the process can use 100MB or memory. We don't want to c
Hi Ilia,
"Ilia Alshanetsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Eh? When you set a limit what are you trying to do? From my
> experience most of the time this setting is used by hosting providers
> to restrict memory utilization of various PHP scripts to avoid out-of-
> m
Nuno Lopes wrote:
Hello,
So Andrei asked me to upgrade the zlib extension, but I have a few
questions I would like to discuss with you:
I'd like to collaborate on this. Besides reimplementing the output
handler to use the new API, I planned to upgrade it to something similar
like http_encod
On 27-Jul-06, at 11:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Given that there is significant interest, and no objection, I'll
commit this later today. Are any of trunk / 5.2 or 4.4 branches
frozen right now?
Bill
I don't see a problem with an addition of this feature to PHP 5.2 as
we are still
Given that there is significant interest, and no objection, I'll
commit this later today. Are any of trunk / 5.2 or 4.4 branches
frozen right now?
Bill
Steph Fox wrote:
Steph Fox wrote:
It wouldn't make any difference to John, since he'd need to support
older Apache installs for the instal
Hi there,
First off, thanks to everyone who downloaded the installer and gave
great feedback; I've incorporated many of the changes in this updated
version.
Changes:
- Installs PHP 5.2.0 RC1
- Configures Apache ( both module and CGI ) and Sambar Server.
- Reorganized install menu
- Grouped PECL
Hi Michael,
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Wallner"
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006
> Matt W wrote:
>
> > That's why I'm assuming negative numbers aren't "really" supported
> > now (not in any form with base_convert()), but it's simply a side
> > effect of wanting to handle *positive*
Hi Dmitry,
Thanks for the reply. :-)
To the others mentioning the overhead and "slowness" of keeping track of the
memory size, I can't believe that, relative to ALL the other work being done
in emalloc()? I was going to try a loop of emalloc() and efree() with and
without memory-limit just to se
Steph Fox wrote:
It wouldn't make any difference to John, since he'd need to support
older Apache installs for the installer anyway... apart from that,
it's got my vote!
Sure it would. PHPIniDir is apache directive provided by php's
sapi/apache2*. Adding it to sapi/apache would make it univers
Steph Fox wrote:
>
> It wouldn't make any difference to John, since he'd need to support
> older Apache installs for the installer anyway... apart from that,
> it's got my vote!
>
Sure it would. PHPIniDir is apache directive provided by php's
sapi/apache2*. Adding it to sapi/apache would make it un
Matt W wrote:
> That's why I'm assuming negative numbers aren't "really" supported
> now (not in any form with base_convert()), but it's simply a side
> effect of wanting to handle *positive* numbers between LONG_MAX and
> ULONG_MAX. e.g. when doing dechex(4294967173) that's a PHP double,
> but i
Hi William,
John Mertic wrote:
Hi there,
On 7/26/06, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case of Apache 1 only, php-apache.ini needs to be in the
toplevel Apache directory. In every other case (php-cli.ini,
php-cgi-fcgi.ini php-apache2.ini, and
php-whatever-2.2-SAPI-is-called.ini)
it
Hi Michael,
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Wallner"
> Matt W wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> [...]
>
> I don't see what you're trying to fix.
>
> $ cli -r 'var_dump((int)hexdec(dechex(-123)),
(int)(float)sprintf("%u",-123), (int)0xff85);'
> int(-123)
> int(-123)
> int(-123)
The main
On 27-Jul-06, at 9:03 AM, bertrand Gugger wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 27-Jul-06, at 6:02 AM, Matt W wrote:
Something else I'd like to see changed... Does anyone think
memory_get_[peak_]usage() should *always* be available,
regardless of
whether memory_limit is actually enabled? Usi
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 27-Jul-06, at 6:02 AM, Matt W wrote:
Something else I'd like to see changed... Does anyone think
memory_get_[peak_]usage() should *always* be available, regardless of
whether memory_limit is actually enabled? Using the Windows binaries at
least, I was devastated
On 27-Jul-06, at 8:50 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Now, functions memory_get_[peak_]usage() and memory_limit checking
can be
enabled/disabled using "--enable-memory-limit" configure option.
However
cost of meory_limit checking is significant less with new memory
manager.
I'd prefer to avoid
I'm NOT a expert in this field. My POV may be quite dumb, but it may
point to a solution.
If memory is allocated, I would assume that somewhere there is a
mechanism to access it otherwise this is a memory leak.
So, rather than counting the memory in real time, why not have the
memory_get_usage()
Now, functions memory_get_[peak_]usage() and memory_limit checking can be
enabled/disabled using "--enable-memory-limit" configure option. However
cost of meory_limit checking is significant less with new memory manager.
I think now we can remove "--enable-memory-limit" option and make it always
On 27-Jul-06, at 6:02 AM, Matt W wrote:
Something else I'd like to see changed... Does anyone think
memory_get_[peak_]usage() should *always* be available, regardless of
whether memory_limit is actually enabled? Using the Windows
binaries at
least, I was devastated :-D that they were unavai
Matt W wrote:
> Hi again,
>
[...]
I don't see what you're trying to fix.
$ cli -r 'var_dump((int)hexdec(dechex(-123)), (int)(float)sprintf("%u",-123),
(int)0xff85);'
int(-123)
int(-123)
int(-123)
Regards,
--
Michael
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
Hi there,
On 7/26/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've offered this patch before to provide the PHPIniDir for the Apache 1.3
SAPI - no response. Are people interested in my reintroducing it?
If it's fairly low risk, why not. It would make this much easier.
What does e
Hi again,
I realize I might not get any answer about updating these little ol'
functions :-/, but it'd be nice to hear something one way or the other so I
can submit an acceptable patch with correct behavior.
After thinking about it more, are negative numbers even "officially
supported" with the
Matt W wrote:
> Hi Dmitry, Ilia, et al.,
>
> Ilia, the Memory Manager is checking the *real* size against memory_limit,
> so it's still "more accurate" even after the functions were changed to
> report more like the old way. I still wonder how much difference there may
> be between size and real_s
Hi Dmitry, Ilia, et al.,
Ilia, the Memory Manager is checking the *real* size against memory_limit,
so it's still "more accurate" even after the functions were changed to
report more like the old way. I still wonder how much difference there may
be between size and real_size as it gets close to t
34 matches
Mail list logo
