Hi Pierre,
Can reproduce it now, can you open a bug please and assign it to mysql?
Done: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=60863
Thanks,
Christian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi Pierre,
I cannot reproduce the error, mysqlnd builds just fine here.
What's your configure line?
cscript /nologo configure.js
--disable-phar
--disable-ipv6
--disable-zts
--enable-cgi
--disable-bcmath
--disable-calendar
--disable-odbc
--disable-tokenizer
Hi,
I was compiling PHP 5.4 SVN for Windows and noticed that the NTS Debug
version does not compile correctly if mysqlnd is enabled. The ZTS Debug,
ZTS Release and NTS Release versions work without any problems. Also,
PHP 5.3 in all 4 variants (Debug/Release, NTS/ZTS) has no problems.
I've
Hi,
My suggestion is to wait until the 15th of January (that's one month
since I started this thread) and that should have been enough time of
everybody.
So, it's 18th - are we moving forward with this?
Yes, Sorry, I've been extremely busy for the last two months, I'll get
back to this in
Hello,
[CC to pecl-dev since this is APC-related.]
I have been investigating a problem occuring when using APC in
combination with userspace session save handlers. This has been reported
multiple times both in the APC and PHP bugtrackers, bugs related to this
issue include (but are most likely
Hi,
I've used APC + custom session handler for ages without any problems.
Probably just under different circumstances.
And couldn't this be fixed without such nasty hooks..?
I'm open for other suggestions...
Regards,
Christian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
Hi,
I have been investigating a problem occuring when using APC in
combination with userspace session save handlers. This has been reported
multiple times both in the APC and PHP bugtrackers, bugs related to this
issue include (but are most likely not limited to):
This has been documented
Hi,
If you remove that, there are only two parts that seem to be really
ARM-specific:
2) a patch for zend_float.h
Both of them are not clear to me, would you care to explain why are they
needed?
Since I'm responsible for zend_float.h: When running ./configure
directly without telling it
Hello again,
A quick summary of the votes so far (since 15th December):
internals@ votes:
0: (1) Alexey Zakhlestin
A: (1) Hannes Magnusson
C: (0) -
D: (0) -
A+: (2) Christian Seiler, Joey Smith
AS: (1) Stanislav Malyshev
---
5 votes
[AS is Stas' version
Hello again,
Discuss away!
I'm a little disappointed by the non-outcome of this debate. Very few
people have responded and most of them seem to agree proposal (A) should
be implemented, perhaps with the additional bind/bindTo as in my
proposal and perhaps not.
The problem here is: (A) was
Hi Lukas,
Call for a vote. This time around people cannot claim to not have had
time to review the issue. Also back then we tried to play it safe
because of the short time before we were to release. This time there is
more time for this to mature if needed inside svn.
Ok, so then I call for
Hi,
Ok, so then I call for a vote. Again, here are the options:
A+, no direct method calling (get/call problem would be messy)
I don't quite follow: Why A+ if no direct method calling? What would be
the point of allowing bindTo() if $obj-closureProp() doesn't work
anyway? If you don't want
Hi,
since a few months have passed since the last discussion on this topic
and perhaps people had time to gather some experience with the current
closure implementation in PHP 5.3 I'd like to restart the debate on
$this in closures and object extension.
Foreword: The discussion should center on
Hi Lukas,
If issues are found/fixed please send the patches to internals for
review. Based on the importance and risk of the patch will then be
applied, however the next 2 days should really be focused on testing to
make sure we do not have critical issues, minor issues can always be
fixed
Hi Greg,
I can do it if someone can answer this question: how do closures
uniquely identify themselves? spl_autoload_register is mistakenly
treating all closures as if they were a single copy of the static method
Closure::__invoke, and so only the first registered closure is ever
called
Hi Greg,
(I meant commit when I said patch, sorry :)
http://news.php.net/php.cvs/58696
and
http://news.php.net/php.cvs/58697
Thanks, looks fine to me. However, I noticed that closures don't work
with spl_autoload_unregister() and spl_autoload_functions(). Also,
classes that define __invoke
Hi Pierre,
(Btw. you got the wrong Christian as CC. ;-))
There is still a significant performance impact due to _controlfp_s
usage.
Huh? After the modification I made this should only called once (!) at
PHP startup Or did we miss something? Anyway, calling it once should not
cause any
Hi,
[quote from off-list:]
I am in way over my head and would not do a good job
fixing these (or have the time), care to take a crack at it?
Ok, I'll do that tomorrow morning.
I wonder if the problem is that
spl_autoload_register should not just be checking to see if zcallable is
Hi Kalle,
3) Closures, theres alot of closure differences in HEAD and 5.3, for
example HEAD has ReflectionMethod::getClosure() and
ReflectionFunction::getClosureThis(), but 5.3 does not, which makes it
looks like a change in 5.3 that never occured to HEAD, unless that is
the logic is
Hi Daniel,
But, for what you're testing, that's the behavior I'd expect -- once
you've reached the precision of a double, you'll only get the closest
representation possible (and of course a 64-bit long is more precise than
a double since there's no floating point to represent). Also, I
Hi Lukas,
Did this get addressed yet?
No, it didn't. But since no one complained about it I'll commit it later
this evening. (commit freeze is over, right?)
Regards,
Christian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
When running 'make test' on my system I discovered that
tests/output/ob_start_basic_unerasable_003.phpt and
tests/output/ob_start_basic_unerasable_004.phpt produced memory leaks -
due to the fact that they first fetch the buffer into return_value but
then do RETURN_FALSE if they detect an
Hi Nate,
Any thoughts or feedback would be very much appreciated. :-)
The scoping problem is very deeply related to the $this issue: Should
one be able to switch the change of a closure by re-binding it to
another object or not?
It was also an open point in my RFC on object extension in
Hi Johannes,
while implementing a small toy extension (see [1]) I found out that
ZEND_USER_OPCODE_CONTINUE seems to misbehave as it doesn't go to the
next opcode so I ended up in an endless loop executing the same opcode
again and again.
Isn't that expected behaviour? If a normal opcode
Hi,
variables_order: They should be the same on dev and prod.
request_order: Seems like it should be the same.
Caution! I've read several times in this thread that request_order
should be set to something that also contains C. This is DANGEROUS.
request_order was specifically introduced to
Hi,
as Lukas and Johannes have requested, I have removed $this support from
Closures in PHP 5.3.
Technical details on the changes can be found here:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/removal-of-this
(I didn't have time to write new tests for everything, I just removed
those tests which didn't
Hi Dmitry,
The only difference is in binding/creation. You suggest
$obj-method2 = Closure::bind ($obj, function () { ... });
and I would prefer something like
create_prototype_method($obj, method2, function () { ... });
I prefer a static method of the Closure class because it does not
Hi again,
ok, I just verified that the current PHP 5.3 CVS has the same behaviour
as PHP 5.3 alpha 3 (which is the original design). So basically, I'd
suggest the following:
* Feature freeze as Lukas and Johannes had planned tomorrow with *no*
more changes wrt. closures for beta1, then
Hi,
maybe an IRC meeting is the easiest way to come to an agreement. How
about tomorrow evening 21:00 CEST in #php.closures on freenode?
Just for clarification: I assume you mean Wednesday, January 21st, 19:00
UTC (CEST == UTC+2) and thus 20:00 CET? Would be fine with me.
Regards,
Christian
Hi Marcus,
And I could say that what the two of you designed ofr PHP is not a design
but a very confusing incoherent implementation that is based on the lack
of being able to get support for something else in the underlying c
implementation.
Huh? The current implementation is by
Hi Marcus,
Convoluted? Mess? Are you kidding me? It's standard usage of access
handlers.
It is a mess right now. You assign a closure to another method and get
access to the original owners private members. That is not only unexpected
and contradicting anything that any oyther language
Hi Pierre,
Would any of the PHP Windows guys like to comment on this?
I did, and the reason behind this proposal was about solving the VC*
problem for the end users (we have to add another condition to check,
which CRT is used) :)
I'm sorry for asking again, maybe I'm just plain stupid ;-)
Hi,
I think that it would be better if we adopted more clean and scalable
solution for that. I propose having one string build ID, which would
look something like: API20071006,NTS,Debug,VC8 and would be rquired to
match exactly in the engine and the module. This should be relatively
easy to
Hi Pierre,
A VC6 extension is not compatible with a VC9 build (or the other way
round). It crashes randomly depending on what the extension does
(xdebug for one is really good for this test :).
You wouldn't know about how VC8 fits in here? Anyway, thanks for the
pointer to xdebug, I'll try
Hi,
Basic types were added to our JSON decoder to PHP 5.2.1, this allows
one to use json_encode / json_decode on any of our scalar types. Omar
correctly identified #38680 as not a bug but it appears that Ilia
added support for this anyway violating the RFC [1]. Maybe there was a
reason for
Hi Felipe,
--SKIP--
?php if (!posix_mknod('posix_getcwd')) die('skip posix_getcwd() not found');
?
?php if (!posix_mknod('posix_isatty')) die('skip posix_isatty() not found');
?
?php if (!posix_mknod('posix_mknod')) die('skip posix_mknod() not found'); ?
Shouldn't those be
Hi,
I have given you ZE karma. Please commit this yourself no later than
Tuesday evening!
Thanks done.
Regards,
Christian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
Your macros are not compatible with autoconf 2.13:
***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_LINK_IFELSE
Grmpf. Problems like this are why I absolutely loathe autoconf. I'll
install 2.13 right away and fix this.
Regards,
Christian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
Hi,
Your macros are not compatible with autoconf 2.13:
***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_LINK_IFELSE
Grmpf. Problems like this are why I absolutely loathe autoconf. I'll
install 2.13 right away and fix this.
Done, tested with autoconf 2.13 and 2.61:
Hi Lukas,
First of all, @all: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/rounding - I didn't have
time to update it yet but the basically nothing has changed except for
implementation details wrt. FPU precision. For FPU precision
explanations see (*).
Anyways, a few items from the top of my head that I know
Hi,
Modified files: (Branch: PHP_5_3)
/php-src/ext/standard math.c
Log:
Fixed bug #42294 (Unified solution for round() based on C99 round)
[DOC] New implementation of round() to work-around inconsistencies for win32
and 64 bit platforms.
This solution
Hi Lukas, Hi Scott,
Scott said he could apply the patch for you. And he is sitting right in
front of me ..
Actually, since I've stirred up the list a bit just now, I'd like to
wait until we have consensus on this issue.
But thanks for the offer. :-)
Regards,
Christian
--
PHP Internals -
Hi Stefan,
1) Define some macros for math-related functions that will ensure the
function itself always uses double precision. Add configure checks for
these macros.
Do you know what the rationale behind the standard compiler behaviour is?
Because trying to outsmart the compiler is
Hi,
[For conclusive proposal, see below.]
1) Internal FPU precision on x86.
Do you have any test cases show the error?
Sure. Consider the following C code:
#include stdio.h
int main (int argc, char **argv) {
volatile double v = 100.0;
printf (%.35f\n%.35f\n, 0.002877, 2877.0 / v);
Hi,
My proposals are here:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaceref
Just for the record: I like both of them, the second one would probably
be better to accomodate those who want functions in namespaces.
Regards,
Christian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
Hi,
@internals: Anyway, since nobody of the core devs seems to be interested
in this topic, is there any objection to me committing this patch to HEAD?
Since I received no answer, I assumed that nobody would object and tried
to commit my patch to HEAD. Problem is that I don't have ZE2 karma
Hi,
For the record, I was very excited to see your proposal and the work you've
done.
Thanks! :)
I'm not a PHP dev so I can't comment on the patch, maybe there might
be a performance concern?
The new algorithm is slightly slower in most of the cases and quite a
bit slower if strings have
Hi,
A few weeks ago I wrote quite a long posting to internals@ that tried to
clarify the situation on the round() function in PHP. I was asked to
write it up as an RFC in the wiki, which I have done:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/rounding
In the mean time, I had some time to think about that problem
Hi,
all submitted now. Thanks everyone for their help and especially
Christian for getting this started.
Thanks for making my patch work after the modifications in
zend_closures.c. I'm sorry I couldn't do it myself but I was kind of
busy the last few days and the simple fix created memory
Maintaining closures, see http://news.php.net/php.internals/39835
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi Marcus,
Account approved and access granted.
Thanks!
Please provide the function copying in a function next to _free_function()
I just committed that (and included some tests). I hope I didn't do
anything wrong in the process, if so, feel free to do so.
and care for parameter info as
Hi Dmitry, Hi Marcus,
I have no objections against ZE part of the patch.
If you like ext/reflection part please commit the whole patch.
Due to your cleanup wrt. handlers the reflection part will currently
(probably) segfault. I'll post an updated patch for this tomorrow.
Regards,
Christian
Hi,
http://www.christian-seiler.de/temp/php/2008-07-24-reflection/reflection-closure-fixes-5.3.patch
http://www.christian-seiler.de/temp/php/2008-07-24-reflection/reflection-closure-fixes-6.patch
The last CVS commit for apply_func_t and TSRMLS_CC conflicted with the
patches, I merged the
Hi Marcus,
patch looks fine and should go in.
Thanks.
do you think ReflectionMethod::__construct implementation could be done
using parameterparsing 'f' rather than the spcial case 'o'?
The Problem with 'f' is that it will accept every callback, even normal
functions, so that would
Hi,
Last week I submitted a bug report on the issue described below. The
response (also below) was that this is not a bug. I fail to see how it
could *not* be a bug given that strtotime is parsing an invalid date
into a seemingly-arbitrary and definitely-meaningless number,
strtotime() has
Hi!
so do we even want the toString() method?
IMHO we should drop toString from Closure.
There is one case which *may* cause problems:
function doSomething ($callback) {
if (!is_callable ($callback)) {
throw new Exception (...);
}
// special treatment
if ($callback ==
Hi,
Wouldn't it be better (and maybe safer) to allow the use of $this as a
closure instead of passing it to the new lambda function?
We had that in a previous patch. We had quite a few discussions on what
the best syntax would be, actually.
In the end, Dmitry and I chose to implement it in
Hi,
I'd like to add the following patch to reflection before the feature
freeze, because it does not change any current reflection behaviour but
adds quite a bit of good stuff for closures.
With the current closure implementation, __invoke always has the same
signature as the original lambda
Hi!
This 64-bit machine is running 5.2.5 and returns false on the all-zero
datetime string. It was upgraded last week to 5.2.6 and started
returning the large negative integer.
Ah, yes, the change responsible is the following:
Hi Lukas,
1) Closures on class properties just don't work, the only way to do it is
to do something like:
$c = $a-b;
$c();
Calling: $a-b(); will result in method A::B() does not exists.
Yes, that's expected behaviour (we had a few comments on this on the
list). Compare this to, for example:
Hi!
Note too that the value actually stored in $f differs from that we may expect
simply reading the source: the difference is very small, but it exists. Float
values can always be converted back in decimal base with exact precision, so
for example in our case the $f variable now contains
Hi,
With this posting I'd like to make another try in resolving the rounding
issues in PHP.
This is basically in response to http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=42294
(bug #42294) where I added a comment last year. Since then I have read
quite a bit on this subject so I feel that I should post an
Hi,
1) The RFC page says that closures pass by value by default. Although it is
not stated, am I correct in saying that due to the way resources and objects
(and presumably therefore lambdas) are handled they will still have the
effect of passing by reference anyway, just as with a function
Hi,
After some discussion with Dmitry, he and I have continued to improve
the current closure patch. You can find the current proposal with
patches for 5_3 and HEAD here:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures
(Please read it again, I've changed quite a lot.)
Basically, it's the syntax with use
Hi Stanislav,
Or did you just mean $example-setSearch() and I'm worried about
nothing? :)
Yes, absolutely, Sorry for the confusion caused. ;-)
I fixed that in the Wiki.
In this case, I'd just propose to have getThis() anyway.
I don't see a need, but I'm not against it. Should be
Hi Dmitry,
I'm fine if you'll improve my patch (It's mainly yours :)
I updated my closures RFC: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures
I have based my new version of the patch on yours (Dmitry), but I made
some changes to that:
* Objects instead of resources are used, two new files
Hi!
2. What does streams has to do with this networking? Can it be done using
streams?
Yes, it can. Take the following simple, incomplete example without much
error handling as a starting point:
// in the header
#include php_streams.h
// PHP function:
PHP_FUNCTION(simplehttp_fetch)
{
Hi Marcus,
I like the new ability to reference if wanted. But then I don't like
references at all.
As I said: Without reference support, you can't call it closures.
Closures must per definition have the possibility to change the values
of used variables in the parent scope - and the only
Hi!
I see exactly one problem with the patch, which is that the above script
shouldn't work without use ($i).
I find it counterintuitive that the creation of the lambda creates a copy of
$i, but all invocations of $lambda use a reference to the same $i.
For n calls to $lambda, there are only 2
Hi!
Since some raised issues with the word lexical, what do people think
to just re-use the (afaik deprecated) var keyword, so we won't need a
new keyword in the chain.
That would be quite confusing IMHO, since JavaScript uses 'var' for the
exact opposite - to declare variables that are
Hi Dmitry,
First of all: Your patch does really simplify things internally quite a
bit - I like it. I have a few issues though:
The patch shouldn't affect opcode caches and other extensions as it
doesn't change any structures.
I don't see a problem in changing structures for either
Hi!
- I am a little confused about the OOP interaction. How does a function
become a public method of the class?
To clarify: the public method ist just the internal representation of
the lambda function and has *nothing* to do with the semantics of
calling the lambda itself. The method only
Hi!
1) I am not sure that the current semantics of the lexical keyword
is great in all cases. Is the reason why you don't allow by-value
binding so that we don't have to manage more than one lambda instance
per declaration?
First of all: global and static are also used to create references to
Hi,
[I'm going to collect here a bit:]
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
lexical in the proposal binds to creator's scope, not caller's scope, as
I understood. Anyway, binding to caller's immediate scope doesn't seem
that useful since you could just pass it as a parameter when calling.
Correct and
Hi Andi, Hi Stanislav,
- You mention global and static as examples of how we do things
today. They are actually not good examples because the binding by
reference which they do has been a real pain over the years. This
is why we introduced the $GLOBALS[] array so that you could also
assign by
Hi,
- I am a little confused about the OOP interaction. How does a function
become a public method of the class?
To clarify: the public method ist just the internal representation of
the lambda function and has *nothing* to do with the semantics of
calling the lambda itself. The method only
Hi!
class Dynamic {
private $someVar = 5;
/// adding a function to instances from within the class
public function addMethodAtRuntime() {
$this-dynamicFunc1 = function() {
return $this-someVar; // expected to work
}
}
}
/// invoking dynamically added methods
///
Hi Marcus,
very nice work.
Thanks!
The only thing I don't like is the function naming
(“\0__compiled_lambda_FILENAME_N”). Can we drop the \0?
I used \0 because it is already used in two other places:
1) create_function (run-time lambda functions) uses \0__lambda_N
2)
Hi Marcus,
I now have revised my patch to include your suggestions:
http://www.christian-seiler.de/temp/closures-php-5.3-2008-06-17-2.diff
The changes to the previous version:
- \0 at the start of the compiled lambda function name is dropped.
- lambdas which are class members are now marked
Hi!
I'm not Johannes and I didn't review the proposal in detail yet, but I
think we have enough for 5.3 right now. I'd think we better concentrate
on tying the loose ends and rolling beta out and then moving towards the
release than adding more and more features and never releasing it. 5.3
Hi,
As a followup to the discussion in January, I'd like post a revised patch to
this list that implements closures and anonymous functions in PHP.
INTRODUCTION
Closures and lambda functions can make programming much easier in
several ways:
1. Lambda functions allow the quick
Hi,
Lukas Kahwe Smith asked me to put my proposal into the PHP wiki, which I
have done:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures
I also have incorporated the last comment by troels knak-nielsen about
JS behaving the same way as my patch and thus not being that much of a
WTF at all (I somehow had a
Hi!
Thanks for reading through!
1. There appear to be some spurious whitespace insertions in this
version of the patch.
Oh, that's probably my editor, I'll fix that.
2. The terms lamba and anonymous function are being used
interchangeably. If we're going to introduce new
Hi!
Just a minor note; The semi-colon after the closing brace, seems
superfluous. Is there any reason for it?
Unfortunately, yes. The problem is that the closure must be an
expression so it can a) be assigned to a variable and b) returned
directly. And since the expression is only a part of a
Hi David!
One question about the names you generate for the function table in
combination with opcode caches. [...]
I now updated the patch so that this problem is addressed. You will find
it here:
http://www.christian-seiler.de/temp/closures-php-5-3-v2.patch
The compiled functions are now
Hi,
I was following this thread and came upon Jeff's posting on how closures
could be implemented in PHP.
Since I would find the feature to be EXTREMELY useful, I decided to
actually implement it more or less the way Jeff proposed. So, here's the
patch (against PHP_5_3, I can write one against
Hi!
typo alert:
Oh, thanks (don't know how it got in there ;-)), I fixed that, same
address:
http://www.christian-seiler.de/temp/closures-php-5-3.patch
Very impressive patch, I'll be interested to try it out when I get a chance.
Thanks!
Christian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
Hi!
I'm going to answer to everybody at once, if that's OK.
David Zülke wrote:
One question about the names you generate for the function table in
combination with opcode caches.
[...]
While this is a constructed example, it could easily occur with
conditional includes with environments
88 matches
Mail list logo
