ZEND_HASH_APPLY_* confusion
| From: | Marcus Boerger | Date: | Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:26:23 +0000 |
| Subject: | ZEND_HASH_APPLY_* confusion | ||
| Groups: | php.internals | ||
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-22066@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello internals,
we have the consts:
#define ZEND_HASH_APPLY_KEEP 0
#define ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE 1<<0
#define ZEND_HASH_APPLY_STOP 1<<1
and the apply functions:
ZEND_API void zend_hash_apply(HashTable *ht, apply_func_t apply_func TSRMLS_DC);
ZEND_API void zend_hash_apply_with_argument(HashTable *ht, apply_func_arg_t apply_func, void *
TSRMLS_DC);
ZEND_API void zend_hash_apply_with_arguments(HashTable *ht, apply_func_args_t apply_func, int, ...);
as well as:
ZEND_API void zend_hash_reverse_apply(HashTable *ht, apply_func_t apply_func TSRMLS_DC);
we also have strange uscase:
static int clean_non_persistent_constant(zend_constant *c TSRMLS_DC)
{
if (c->flags & CONST_PERSISTENT) {
return EG(full_tables_cleanup) ? 0 : ZEND_HASH_APPLY_STOP;
} else {
return EG(full_tables_cleanup) ? 1 : ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE;
}
}
which actually would be the same as:
static int clean_non_persistent_constant(zend_constant *c TSRMLS_DC)
{
if (c->flags & CONST_PERSISTENT) {
return EG(full_tables_cleanup) ? ZEND_HASH_APPLY_KEEP : ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE;
} else {
return ZEND_HASH_APPLY_REMOVE;
}
}
because normal apply functions only consider 0 and non 0.
Only the revese apply function takes the STOP constant into account.
Now obviously the case where a mixture of integres and consts is being
used didn't lead to a problem but we should make them correct anyway.
But i think we should also aim to make all apply functions aware of the
STOP const becuase in some cases it would mean a speedup.
Best regards,
Marcus