Re: cvs: php4 /ext/sablot sablot.c

From: Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:40:42 +0000
Subject: Re: cvs: php4 /ext/sablot sablot.c
References: 1 2  Groups: php.cvs 
Request: Send a blank email to php-cvs+get-6707@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
At 16:30 10-08-01, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 01:04:59PM -0000, Zeev Suraski wrote:
zeev          Fri Aug 10 09:04:59 2001 EDT
Modified files:
    /php4/ext/sablot  sablot.c
Log: More build fixes Index: php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c diff -u php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c:1.50 php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c:1.51
--- php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c:1.50     Fri Aug 10 08:28:15 2001
+++ php4/ext/sablot/sablot.c Fri Aug 10 09:04:58 2001 @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ ZEND_GET_MODULE(sablot) #endif -static void php_sablot_init_globals(php_sablot_globals *sablot_globals) +static void php_sablot_init_globals(zend_sablot_globals *sablot_globals TSRMLS_DC) {
      sablot_globals->processor             = NULL;
      sablot_globals->errors                = NULL;
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ PHP_MINIT_FUNCTION(sablot) { #ifdef ZTS
-     ts_allocate_id(&sablot_globals_id, sizeof(php_sablot_globals), (ts_allocate_ctor)php_sablot_init_globals, NULL);
+     ts_allocate_id(&sablot_globals_id, sizeof(zend_sablot_globals), (ts_allocate_ctor)php_sablot_init_globals, NULL);
    i'd really like to keep the extension function/variables etc
    in the php* namespace, i use completion in gdb quite often,
    and by mixing zend_ prefixed variables into php space it
    doesn't make this easier.
    i do not think there is any pressing reason to prefix
    php-extension globals with zend_ instead of php_.
    lets keep the namespaces separate!
Thies, Read my responses to Rasmus. The reason there was a mix was the redundant definitions in php.h. The reason for my fix was to eliminate this long-going mix. I don't see how it has any effect on gdb debugging, other than being more consistent (not having to look for two types of symbols, just one). As you may know, I also debug using gdb, more often than I care to... Does the fact that internal function implementations have the same prefix as the engine functions bother you? If that's the case, we can use a different prefix, but we should have just one set of macros either way. Zeev

« previous php.cvs (#6707) next »