Andi Gutmans wrote:
Check out zend_call_function(). It allows you to cache the function
lookup in the fci_cache parameter.
Where is the best place to find zend_call_function details, nothing in
the manual and google gives some spurious results.
--
Lester Caine
-
L.S.C
Use the source, Luke.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:08:00 +0100, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Check out zend_call_function(). It allows you to cache the function
> > lookup in the fci_cache parameter.
>
> Where is the best place to find zend_call_function details,
cvs -dP up
./buildconf
./configure
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:36:25 +, Curt Zirzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I hope I'm doing something wrong, I'm issuing this:
>
> cvs -dP update
> make clean
> ./configure --with-zlib --and-other-options
> make cli
>
> My result when linking occ
For the record, herewith:
- definitive (?) list of php's fp/rounding/arithmetic issues
- analysis of the issues
- discussion of options for handling the issues
- description of a comprehensive and "painless" solution
- links to and discussion of proof-of-concept C code
Apologies for the length of t
# cvs -dPA
# ./cvsclean
# ./buildconf
# ./configure ...
Better choice: Use the snapshots..
--Jani
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Wez Furlong wrote:
>cvs -dP up
>./buildconf
>./configure
>
>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:36:25 +, Curt Zirzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
You can find some usage of this function in ext/standard/array.c
hth,
andrey
Quoting Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Check out zend_call_function(). It allows you to cache the function
> > lookup in the fci_cache parameter.
>
> Where is the best place to find zend_c
Andrey Hristov wrote:
You can find some usage of this function in ext/standard/array.c
Where is the best place to find zend_call_function details, nothing in
the manual and google gives some spurious results.
Ta - but I'll leave this to John :)
It's a level below where I can usefully help at the m
George Whiffen wrote:
As you either already know or could reasonably guess, my personal
view is that simple, consistent, exact decimal arithmetic is highly
desirable for any development tool intended for either
novices or commercial use.
I use BCMath for critical (e.g. money) calculations as I'd
Christian Schneider wrote:
George Whiffen wrote:
As you either already know or could reasonably guess, my personal
view is that simple, consistent, exact decimal arithmetic is highly
desirable for any development tool intended for either
novices or commercial use.
I use BCMath for critical (e.g
Hey George,
My point is: I'm not against improving accuracy of floating point
arithmetic in PHP (although it could lead to some weird compatibility
problems with older version) but I wouldn't advise people who really,
really have to rely on their numbers to be correct to use floats anyway.
Geor
Christian Schneider wrote:
I store cent values as integer strings and I possibly have to deal with
values bigger than 214 million bucks (where PHP starts to convert ints
Errr, that's 21 million bucks where the transition occurs :-)
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
T
Hi all!
Two small patches to fix typos in php.ini-dist, php.ini-recommended &
mail.c
These patches fix bug #29122.
---
WBR,
Antony Dovgal aka tony2001
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: ext/standard/mail.c
===
RCS file: /r
Christian,
You are paranoid!
You don't need integers AND bc arithmetic! One or the other will do fine.
C doubles are exact for integers a million times bigger than your
requirements (i.e. over 1e15). That means that all integer calculations
are also exact, even if php does store them as floats.
Why do we need one extra byte?
Anyway, the question is if we should return to alloca() or not. I am
slightly in favor but don't feel very strongly about it.
Andi
At 08:44 AM 7/23/2004 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Andi,
the easiest way to make the test suit for 5.1 work again is to
change ze
On July 23, 2004 11:42 am, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Why do we need one extra byte?
We do not.
> Anyway, the question is if we should return to alloca() or not. I am
> slightly in favor but don't feel very strongly about it.
Perhaps we could try a combination of the two, to ensure that no script is
php5/Zend/zend_execute_API.c.
It's quite simple. If you can't figure it out yourself, let me know.
At 08:08 AM 7/23/2004 +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Check out zend_call_function(). It allows you to cache the function
lookup in the fci_cache parameter.
Where is the best place to
At 11:54 AM 7/23/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On July 23, 2004 11:42 am, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Why do we need one extra byte?
We do not.
> Anyway, the question is if we should return to alloca() or not. I am
> slightly in favor but don't feel very strongly about it.
Perhaps we could try a co
On July 23, 2004 12:40 pm, you wrote:
> At 11:54 AM 7/23/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >On July 23, 2004 11:42 am, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > > Why do we need one extra byte?
> >
> >We do not.
> >
> > > Anyway, the question is if we should return to alloca() or not. I am
> > > slightly in favo
At 12:51 PM 7/23/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On July 23, 2004 12:40 pm, you wrote:
> At 11:54 AM 7/23/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >On July 23, 2004 11:42 am, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > > Why do we need one extra byte?
> >
> >We do not.
> >
> > > Anyway, the question is if we should r
This should probably be applied but what if people are using them already?
Any idea when these were introduced?
Andi
At 04:38 PM 7/23/2004 +0400, Antony Dovgal wrote:
Hi all!
Two small patches to fix typos in php.ini-dist, php.ini-recommended &
mail.c
These patches fix bug #29122.
---
WBR,
Antony
Hi George,
Although a bit long, your email was an interesting read.
I am not quite sure how we should approach this problem as PHP's FP has
gone through a zillion patches in the past few years. Adding another INI
option is always something I try and keep away from when possible.
As in general, I
message from marcus börger:
"I have fixed the problem, without the need for an additional byte"
regards,
Lukas Smith aka Proxy
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
dooalocaaa, damnit
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:54:27 -0700, Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:51 PM 7/23/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >On July 23, 2004 12:40 pm, you wrote:
> > > At 11:54 AM 7/23/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky
:)
Ilia, you heard the man. I don't think he leaves you much choice unless you
want to risk him waiting for you in a dark alley with a surprise :)
Andi
At 01:09 PM 7/23/2004 -0700, Sterling Hughes wrote:
dooalocaaa, damnit
On Fri, 23 Jul 200
Fine fine... let's rever it... I don't feel like carrying brass knuckles with
me all the time.
Ilia
On July 23, 2004 04:36 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> :)
>
> Ilia, you heard the man. I don't think he leaves you much choice unless you
> want to risk him waiting for you in a dark alley with a surpri
[resend]
There's no reason why gettimeofday() shouldn''t return the same time in
successive calls; this test fails spuriously on Linux/x86_64 (which has
a particularly fast gettimeofday() implementation).
--- ext/standard/tests/time/001.phpt23 May 2003 20:56:33 - 1.4.2.2
+++ ext/stan
[resend, though I notice gd just got updated with some new functions so
the symbol list is out of date. Feedback welcome on the principal of
the change, anyway]
Building the bundled libgd library into PHP causes symbol namespace
pollution; if any other Apache modules link a different version of l
Sterling's not as tough as he looks.
On Jul 23, 2004, at 5:05 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Fine fine... let's rever it... I don't feel like carrying brass
knuckles with
me all the time.
Ilia
On July 23, 2004 04:36 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
:)
Ilia, you heard the man. I don't think he leaves you much
Yep you're right. It can definitely return the same time twice in a row.
I'll commit this.
At 10:17 PM 7/23/2004 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
[resend]
There's no reason why gettimeofday() shouldn''t return the same time in
successive calls; this test fails spuriously on Linux/x86_64 (which has
a parti
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> Sterling's not as tough as he looks.
That's easy to say when you're 3,000 miles across the country.
Then again, I know you're going to be together in Portland next week,
so there's something for me to look forward to. :)
-adam
--
[EMAIL PROTEC
30 matches
Mail list logo
