Re: ref fix revisited

Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 15:36 14/09/2005, Derick Rethans wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> >> > Zeev Suraski wrote: >> > >> But there are many other cases >> > >> where a function legitimately takes a by-ref and doesn't necessarily >> > >> write to it or the write is a secondary action not required for >> the code >> > >> to work. Could we not catch this on the write instead of on the >> call? >> > > >> > > The problem is that there's no way to tell that element apart at that >> > > time. It's too late. As soon as we treat a read-only zval as if >> it's >> > > read/write (take a ** instead of a *), it's too late, since we can't >> > > really detect later on where it came from. >> > >> > Since we can detect a ref to a temp var at call time now, how about >> > making a local copy in the function and effectively treat it as a >> > by-value arg and also issue an E_NOTICE or an E_STRICT? I think that >> > would solve the corruption problem without breaking BC. >> >> That's exactly what we do in 4.4. > > > Except it is reported to break BC still.. (beyond the notices)? The biggest BC break occured in 5.0.4->5.0.5 where some of these referrence issues cause a fatal error, not a mere notice. Edin