Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 02:42 PM 10/22/2004 +0100, Joe Orton wrote: > > For Linux at least that was fixed since 2.0.50, or are you using 1.3 > > still? > > I still use 1.3 (like, I guess, most of the PHP installations outthere). Then consider this your official wake-up call :) Most people are still using 1.3.x. I don't

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:49:55AM -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > >Then consider this your official wake-up call :) > > LOL. I use Apache 1.3 and found it to work way better then 2.0. 2.0 does > not offer any useful improvements over the 1.3 base, so why switch? If > anythin

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Edin Kadribasic
On Friday 22 October 2004 15:42, Joe Orton wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:26:50PM +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > > On Friday 22 October 2004 13:33, Joe Orton wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:59:04PM +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > > > > However I consider crashing apache children with

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Derick Rethans
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Joe Orton wrote: > > I still use 1.3 (like, I guess, most of the PHP installations outthere). > > Then consider this your official wake-up call :) Perhaps we can consider that when Apache 2 uses static modules like Apache 1.3. But for now Apache 1.3 works great, and that can

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Ilia Alshanetsky
Joe Orton wrote: Then consider this your official wake-up call :) LOL. I use Apache 1.3 and found it to work way better then 2.0. 2.0 does not offer any useful improvements over the 1.3 base, so why switch? If anything in my personal experience 1.3 works way better then 2.0 with PHP. Ilia -- PHP

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:26:50PM +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > On Friday 22 October 2004 13:33, Joe Orton wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:59:04PM +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > > > However I consider crashing apache children with signal 25 when doing > > > simple is_file() or fopen() on

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Edin Kadribasic
On Friday 22 October 2004 13:33, Joe Orton wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:59:04PM +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > > However I consider crashing apache children with signal 25 when doing > > simple is_file() or fopen() on large files really harmful. Apache flat > > out refuses to start if you h

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:59:04PM +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > However I consider crashing apache children with signal 25 when doing simple > is_file() or fopen() on large files really harmful. Apache flat out refuses > to start if you have enabled php error log and that file happen to be 2GB

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Edin Kadribasic
On Friday 22 October 2004 12:08, Joe Orton wrote: > > > But both approaches are feasible, the important thing is to avoid > > > using -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, which just breaks so much. As far as I can tell we use off_t only once when calling external libraries. And yes it is in a call to zlib whe

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 10:53:25AM +0100, Wez Furlong wrote: > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:45:08 +0100, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:53:14AM +0100, Wez Furlong wrote: > > > What I planned to do with the streams API for 5.1 was define > > > php_stream_off_t to be a

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Wez Furlong
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:45:08 +0100, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:53:14AM +0100, Wez Furlong wrote: > > What I planned to do with the streams API for 5.1 was define > > php_stream_off_t to be a 64-bit type (regardless of LFS support), > > adjust the API where it

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:53:14AM +0100, Wez Furlong wrote: > What I planned to do with the streams API for 5.1 was define > php_stream_off_t to be a 64-bit type (regardless of LFS support), > adjust the API where it is needed, and handle the LFS stuff centrally, > using the transitional LFS funct

Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-22 Thread Wez Furlong
What I planned to do with the streams API for 5.1 was define php_stream_off_t to be a 64-bit type (regardless of LFS support), adjust the API where it is needed, and handle the LFS stuff centrally, using the transitional LFS functions you mentioned if they are present. I confess that I haven't del

[PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful

2004-10-21 Thread Joe Orton
There are serious problems from enabling LFS support like this in a project like PHP. If I have some library which uses off_t in its API, e.g. zlib, and I happened to not compile it with LFS support, e.g. as in most Linux distributions, I now *cannot* call the zlib functions using off_t from PHP,