Re: [RFC] Default constructors

I like the last patch. I think ZEND_ACC_STATIC flag must not make any problems. However, I thought about one more inconsistent. Your patch works fine for "parent::" methods but not for "grandparents::" In the following code "default constructor" won't work. class A { } class B extends A { } class C extends B { function __constructor() { A::_constructor(); // this won't work } } It's not a big problem to fix implementation to support it, or may be support for "parent::" is enough. Anyway, it should be reflected in RFC (if this code should work or should not). Thanks. Dmitry. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > thanks Stas. I'll think on next week. > > Dmitry. > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> >> Additional check for ZEND_NULL_FUNCTION in DO_FCALL may be expensive. >> >> I think it must be better to use special predefined function (see >> >> "zend_pass_function" usage in zend_vm_def.h). >> >> I've made a different implementation here: >> >> >> https://github.com/smalyshev/php-src/compare/php:master...smalyshev:default_ctor_func?expand=1 >> >> which uses zend_pass_function but I had to make it static since >> otherwise it's increase refcount for object and it doesn't seem like it >> decrements back. So I'm not sure if it's right, what do you think? >> >> -- >> Stas Malyshev >> smalyshev@gmail.com >> > >