Re: Re: PHP 5.6.0beta2 Released for Testing!

Am 2.5.2014 um 18:11 schrieb Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>: > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Hannes Magnusson <bjori@php.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Jan Ehrhardt <phpdev@ehrhardt.nl> wrote: >>> Ferenc Kovacs in php.qa (Fri, 2 May 2014 12:42:55 +0200): >>>>> ext\apcu\apc_bin.c(238) : error C2065: 'IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY' : >>>>> undeclared >>>>> identifier >>>> >>>> Afair this was mentioned in UPGRADING.INTERNALS, if I remember wrong >> please >>>> open a bugreport. >>> >>> Might be that it is mentioned there (did not check yet), but to an >>> innocent bystander it looks like a BC break between beta1 and beta2. >>> >> >> >> >> l. Removal of IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY and IS_CONSTANT_INDEX hack >> >> These two #defines disappeared. Instead we have now IS_CONSTANT_AST which >> covers also the functionality IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY bid and furthermore the >> hack for marking zvals as constant index with IS_CONSTANT_INDEX is now >> superfluous and so removed. >> Please note that IS_CONSTANT_AST now has the same value than >> IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY had. >> >> >> Could someone be.. like just a tiny littlebit more professional then >> to shit over other people work in the upgrading notes? >> This is not the place for to show off how much better you are then >> everyone else. >> >> And why does it have to be renamed anyway? It has the same value. Does >> the same thing. It just got renamed to piss over people? >> >> -Hannes >> >> -- >> PHP Quality Assurance Mailing List <http://www.php.net/«6²vù.unP ÙÁl›¤ >> > >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >> > moving the discussion to internals@, CCing Bob, as he is the author of the > change. > To my understanding this change was made to fix > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66015 > I was aware that it is a BC break, but I didn't realized that it will > affect other extensions before the first report from the wincache dev > arrived. > Not sure if removing this #defines is really neccessary to fix the bug > mentioned above. > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu It maybe does the same thing, but it needs other handling. (IS_CONSTANT_AST in reality covers also many other cases, not just arrays). If I hadn't renamed the constant, it might eventually still compile fine, but the program would get crashes you don't notice when not testing a very specific subset of the language in combination with the AST. (In reality the AST is more an addition and now when fixing bug 66015 much later, IS_CONSTANT_AST became superfluous and so was removed). This at least ensures that you notice the problem. And prevents other people complaining about a bug you maybe don't find so easily. I just did what seemed the most sensible thing to me. Bob