-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Dmitry,
while I also believe that the extension should not be included in the core at the moment I strongly believe that it will be compatible with every well behaving opcode cache. Because it modifies op_array during execution... a) the opcode cache is not affected at all because it always provides a copy of the cached op_array to execute() or b) the modification will be performed on the cached opcodes in memory which means the opcode cache either stores (and therefore shares) the manipulated opcodes (with other processes) or not. Either way any process loading the opcodes that were manipulated by another process should recognise the loaded op_array as not yet optimized. Therefore the optimization will be repeated in the other process again => No problem at all. Therefore only on edge cases, where 2 processes share the same memory addresses for the switchtables a malfunction due to an opcode cache can happen. (I will improve that by a canary value that is different for each process and that I will store in the extented_value of the JMPZ opcode that is following the CASE) Attention: switchtable is not threadsafe at the moment Stefan Esser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkiS+BMACgkQSuF5XhWr2nhGxQCgn1EPNaZS3ndUZG4DKTQ2+njk 7lwAnjiTWCoInAbR1jTY+4B6vdEm8NLd =+8w7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
