On 18.02.2009 07:08, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> hi,
>
> recently, working on an extension, i wanted to call a method w/ 3 params,
> and as you know, zend_call_method only supports 2 parameters at most. i
> came across this thread in the archives,
>
> http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=12017969031041
Hi Eric.
On 17.02.2009 8:02 Uhr, Eric Stewart wrote:
extension_dir = "./"
Should be commented out as has been pointed out already by Johannes
Schlüter.
enable_dl = On
enable_dl should be off(). Well, that has been said a few time already... :)
By now I also think that allow_call_time_p
Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
Please don't even think of backporting. This will definitely break a
lot of things, and this kind of thing must not be done in a minor
release.
--snip--
I guess the patch relies on the 5.3's DVAL_TO_LVAL behavior that was
changed by the fix for bug #42868, right?
I
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 11:34 +0300, Antony Dovgal wrote:
> > recently, working on an extension, i wanted to call a method w/ 3 params,
> > and as you know, zend_call_method only supports 2 parameters at most. i
> > came across this thread in the archives,
[...]
> What happened to call_user_function
Hi Zoe, all,
- Original Message -
From: "zoe"
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009
> Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
> > Please don't even think of backporting. This will definitely break a
> > lot of things, and this kind of thing must not be done in a minor
> > release.
> >
> >
> --snip--
>
> >>
Hi Johannes,
It's not a bug. Just increment opline before return
ZEND_USER_OPCODE_CONTINUE.
execute_data->opline++;
The user opcode can have additionl OP_DATA arguments or perform JMP, so
it can't set next opline automatic.
Thanks. Dmitry.
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
Hi,
while implementing
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> But I don't think that a new limitation is any better: Tomorrow we have
> to change it again as somebody has a reason to use 5 parameters, so if
> it is changed it should be changed to take any number of arguments and
> no fixed limit..
To summarize what were the problems:
1. casting a float value that is unrepresentable in a target type is
undefined according to C spec.
2. any constant values that are unrepresentable in the standard
integer type are automagically represented as double values in PHP.
i.e. 0xc000 will result i
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello shire,
Thursday, February 12, 2009, 8:02:06 PM, you wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
The following remain open and it does not seem someone is actively
working in it:
- PHP_5_3 missed merge from PHP_5_2 for write_func callback
Seeing as I have an interest in thi
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> But I don't think that a new limitation is any better: Tomorrow we have
> to change it again as somebody has a reason to use 5 parameters, so if
> it is changed it should be changed to take any number of arguments and
> no fixed limit..
Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
As I said earlier, the function is never supposed to be used with
objects. Therefore, we cannot declare it to be broken, and any change
to the behavior anyway leads to a huge BC break. I got a report that
claims the reporter's real-world application behaves strangely with
Yes, those should be fixed too, but it's more difficult to do because they accept varargs,
so not clear where the flag should go.
-Andrei
Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
In addition, we should look at similar comparison-involved array
functions such as array_intersect, array_diff and so on, otherwise
Anyone? Bueller?
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
It seems that our PHP_ADD_EXTENSION_DEP() macro from acinclude.m4 does
not actually do any linking against the dependent extension despite the
comment in it:
dnl Some systems require that we link $2 to $1 when building
The consequence of this is that
Hello Nathan,
Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 3:31:56 PM, you wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> But I don't think that a new limitation is any better: Tomorrow we have
>> to change it again as somebody has a reason to use 5 parameters, so if
>> it is changed it
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
>>
>> As I said earlier, the function is never supposed to be used with
>> objects. Therefore, we cannot declare it to be broken, and any change
>> to the behavior anyway leads to a huge BC break. I got a report tha
Christopher,
I looked into the addition of the use of variables in the INI files and I
wasn't able to find much documentation on it. Also, I haven't been able to
play with them and see exactly how they work. For now I don't feel confident
in adding my own comments about it. If you want to write up
We seem to have a split opinion on what the production INI value for
allow_call_time_pass_reference should be.
As I understand it, this does not enable or disable the ability to pass
references at call time. It only enables or disables PHP's warnings about
this behavior.
I currently have it set t
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> The previous patch is wrong (it doesn't handle the flush();flush(); case
> well). Here's a better one, although it's 304 specific:
Bump?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Feb 18, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Andrei Zmievski > wrote:
Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
As I said earlier, the function is never supposed to be used with
objects. Therefore, we cannot declare it to be broken, and any
change
to the behavior an
+1 Off (Issue warnings)
On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Eric Stewart wrote:
We seem to have a split opinion on what the production INI value for
allow_call_time_pass_reference should be.
As I understand it, this does not enable or disable the ability to
pass
references at call time. It only en
>
>
>
> allow_call_time_pass_reference = Off (Issue Warnings)
>
+1
Regards
Marco
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Ian Eure wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Andrei Zmievski
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
As I said earlier, the function is never supposed to be used with
objects. There
22 matches
Mail list logo
