On 10/07/2011 10:04 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> especially when it is only about fixing a strict warning.
It's not _just_ about silencing a strict warning. It's about preventing
non-obvious fuck-ups in extensions as well, as I alluded to earlier in
the thread.
Consider an extension implementing a fu
Hi!
On 10/6/11 5:59 PM, Daniel K. wrote:
But what about 5.3? there is no ABI issue with this, just a spurious
warning that goes away.
Yeah, I agree with Pierre - it's not a huge problem, and the risk is
there, so I'd hold it for 5.3 as it is the stable version. When 5.4 gets
tested enough th
hi,
2011/10/6 Johannes Schlüter :
> I think 5.3 is fine, too. But please extend the test a bit. The current
> one will pass even if the process segfaults. At least print something at
> the end.
I think it is not safe for 5.3. While the patch looks trivial or
harmless, it is in an area where the
On 10/06/2011 06:15 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> But please extend the test a bit. The current
> one will pass even if the process segfaults. At least print something at
> the end.
Ah, so that's why some of the tests have 'echo "DONE";' at the end.
New test-case uploaded, and attached.
Daniel
On 10/06/2011 06:03 PM, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 17:31, Daniel K. wrote:
>> The patch still applies to trunk, and I think it should be applied to
>> the 5.3 and 5.4 branches as well.
>
> The new patch seems to be indeed better. My only concern is whether it
> covers all thos
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 17:59 +0200, Daniel K. wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 05:55 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > On 10/6/11 5:31 PM, Daniel K. wrote:
> >> A patch was appended, discussed, and improved, and I have uploaded a
> >> test-case, as well as a minimal patch that fixes the problem (attached)
> >> to
On 10/06/2011 05:55 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> On 10/6/11 5:31 PM, Daniel K. wrote:
>> A patch was appended, discussed, and improved, and I have uploaded a
>> test-case, as well as a minimal patch that fixes the problem (attached)
>> to the original bug-report.
>>
>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.p
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 17:31, Daniel K. wrote:
> On 09/23/2011 02:06 PM, I wrote:
>> When a built-in function is defined with ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF, PHP will
>> issue a strict warning if you use an assignment expression as the parameter.
>>
>> As an example, current() show this behaviour.
>>
>
Hi!
On 10/6/11 5:31 PM, Daniel K. wrote:
A patch was appended, discussed, and improved, and I have uploaded a
test-case, as well as a minimal patch that fixes the problem (attached)
to the original bug-report.
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55754
The patch still applies to trunk, and
On 09/23/2011 02:06 PM, I wrote:
> When a built-in function is defined with ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF, PHP will
> issue a strict warning if you use an assignment expression as the parameter.
>
> As an example, current() show this behaviour.
>
> current($foo = array("bar"));
> ?>
>
> Presents you wit
On 09/23/2011 03:41 PM, Daniel K. wrote:
> On 09/23/2011 02:28 PM, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:06, Daniel K. wrote:
>>> When a built-in function is defined with ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF, PHP will
>>> issue a strict warning if you use an assignment expression as the parameter.
>
Hi,
Ran into this exact issue just the other day. In the pre-5.4 days, to get
the first element of a returned array I would use current(). I still think
that's correct and shouldn't raise a digital eyebrow.
On Sep 23, 2011 8:30 PM, "Etienne Kneuss" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:06,
On 09/23/2011 02:28 PM, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:06, Daniel K. wrote:
>> When a built-in function is defined with ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF, PHP will
>> issue a strict warning if you use an assignment expression as the parameter.
>
> The patch looks strange to me, why would y
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:06, Daniel K. wrote:
> When a built-in function is defined with ZEND_SEND_PREFER_REF, PHP will
> issue a strict warning if you use an assignment expression as the parameter.
>
> As an example, current() show this behaviour.
>
> current() has this arginfo defined:
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
