Hello Andi,
Friday, July 23, 2004, 1:26:40 AM, you wrote:
> Yeah but besides hurting performance that would waste an additional pointer
> of storage for each memory block. Not something I'd like to do.
Yep, that's the bad point of it: additional 4 bytes for every zval (on 32 bit
machines).
marc
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yes, I think so. Hopefully I'll have time to take a look at it tomorrow.
> If you don't want to wait, go ahead and see if you find anything
> interesting and mail me. I'm sure we'll find some solution.
It would be also good to think about doing same for
Yeah but besides hurting performance that would waste an additional pointer
of storage for each memory block. Not something I'd like to do.
Andi
At 12:05 AM 7/23/2004 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Andi,
i remember something where each zval had pointer to a free function to
free it's memory
Hello Andi,
i remember something where each zval had pointer to a free function to
free it's memory.
regards
marcus
Thursday, July 22, 2004, 9:00:27 PM, you wrote:
> Don't quite understand what you're suggesting.. Sorry. Can you please
> explain it again?
> At 08:44 PM 7/22/2004 +0200, Marc
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yes, I think so. Hopefully I'll have time to take a look at it tomorrow.
> If you don't want to wait, go ahead and see if you find anything
> interesting and mail me. I'm sure we'll find some solution.
I can wait. I just want to know whether this is some
At 01:42 PM 7/22/2004 -0700, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I assume we could create them on rinit and nuke them at rshutdown.
> Checking it exactly will take me some time.
That's fine. Even supporting only per-request statics would be nice. I
assume they would ha
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> I assume we could create them on rinit and nuke them at rshutdown.
> Checking it exactly will take me some time.
That's fine. Even supporting only per-request statics would be nice. I
assume they would have to be declared via a different API?
- Andrei
-
Don't quite understand what you're suggesting.. Sorry. Can you please
explain it again?
At 08:44 PM 7/22/2004 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Andi,
Thursday, July 22, 2004, 8:16:10 AM, you wrote:
> At 11:01 PM 7/21/2004 -0700, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I saw this in zend_opcode.c zend_
At 10:45 AM 7/22/2004 -0700, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >Alternatively, do you suggest using zend_hash_update() on class
> >properties even though I really need this property to be static so its
> >shared by all instances of the class?
>
> If these are per-req
Hello Andi,
Thursday, July 22, 2004, 8:16:10 AM, you wrote:
> At 11:01 PM 7/21/2004 -0700, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I saw this in zend_opcode.c zend_cleanup_class_data():
>>
>>/* Note that only run-time accessed data need to be cleaned up,
>> * pre-defined data ca
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> >Alternatively, do you suggest using zend_hash_update() on class
> >properties even though I really need this property to be static so its
> >shared by all instances of the class?
>
> If these are per-request statics it can probably be solved.
How could
Marcus and I briefly discussed creating properties that are arrays in
this thread:
--> http://www.zend.com/lists/php-dev/200405/msg00221.html
I posted some code that was working for me, but perhaps it has problems?
David
Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 11:01 PM 7/21/2004 -0700, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Hi,
At 11:01 PM 7/21/2004 -0700, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Hi,
I saw this in zend_opcode.c zend_cleanup_class_data():
/* Note that only run-time accessed data need to be cleaned up,
* pre-defined data can not contain objects and thus are
not probelmatic */
Which lead me to look in
13 matches
Mail list logo
