Re: Re: PHP 5.6.0beta2 Released for Testing!

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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/> > 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). Fair enough. Can you please fix the language in the upgrading file though? This is very disrespectful and I shouldn't have to read internal argument you have with someone in upgrade documentations. > 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 think the value needs to be modified - for the same reason as you renamed it. Who knows, maybe someone has #ifndef..#define is_constant_array .. as it was a new addition at some point. Now that code will kick in again and cause you whatever subtle issues you are indicating as the reason for the rename. -Hannes