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/>
>> 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
Thread (14 messages)