Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127832
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Deprecate type juggling to and from bool type
 within the function type juggling context
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:39:25 +0200
References: <3Yl0UGauXmKqk7s7Hqbv6iaXru-hZHf8Wj6VjwwihgRSaqZo5EZ2ndsOle-ae41C-lvnirynWt6PpuD7UJPL0zPCw18QHFE81Eb--fiiEbc=@gpb.moe>
 <bvjVobCbLKyWiVoKMNH_rtLH0_qZ5Jf2zi9FPqqpaIXNwNXi-niyI4yPc5SgLn0clNXeRvOLo0KWS2ma2o3CTMmczL5anK8G_56xi1wFegg=@gpb.moe>
 <57000669-EBAC-457D-BAB9-5B7CA2497BEA@cschneid.com>
 <_PD6Pm_be1h0d70p046HnYr9o1bvN-7Z1p7StpDPbA_r4PupUJF9U9jmsG44ZKoeQFB-x0qtZxVm4XlngoBJhBOl9BTo11Qf1hJ5g6Psho8=@gpb.moe>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <_PD6Pm_be1h0d70p046HnYr9o1bvN-7Z1p7StpDPbA_r4PupUJF9U9jmsG44ZKoeQFB-x0qtZxVm4XlngoBJhBOl9BTo11Qf1hJ5g6Psho8=@gpb.moe>
Message-ID: <EB4C061C-58BB-434F-8557-081EB1D40732@cschneid.com>
From: cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider)

Am 01.07.2025 um 14:40 schrieb Gina P. Banyard <internals@gpb.moe>:
>> The RFC talks about "from" AND "to" bool conversion but the examples =
under Backward Incompatible Changes only seem mention "from" bool, is =
that correct?
>=20
> I didn't think adding examples for "to" bool was useful, but I can add =
some.

Thanks!

>> I tried the implementation in branch bool-juggling-dep-poc on =
https://github.com/Girgias/php-src.git and encountered two things:
>> - php -r 'strlen(false);' produced a core dump with =
Zend/zend_API.c:561: zend_arg_from_bool_deprecated: Assertion =
`func->common.fn_flags & (1 << 14)' failed.
>=20
> I forgot to update the optimized strlen opcode, I pushed a fix for =
this, please pull in the latest version of the branch that has been =
force pushed.

Yes, that fixed it for me.

>> - array_slice($a, 1, preserve_keys:"a") did not produce a warning =
even though I would have thought that is a "to" bool conversion. Am I =
wrong? What should I test instead?
>=20
> I haven't had time to look at why this is not triggering as it should. =
But some internal functions do weird stuff sometimes.

Not sure if it was a side-effect of the other fix or if you fixed more =
but the code above now correctly reports a warning.

Thanks again, my evaluation with our code base show very little impact =
so I'm positive about the change,
- Chris