Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:23844 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70128 invoked by uid 1010); 1 Jun 2006 05:21:11 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70113 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2006 05:21:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Jun 2006 05:21:11 -0000 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: frank@kromann.info X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.186.239.125 c-064-186-239-125.oc1.redwire.net Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from ([64.186.239.125:51926] helo=mail.kromann.info) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id 37/6B-07504-7497E744 for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:21:11 -0400 Received: by mail.kromann.info (Postfix, from userid 510) id E16004040CA; Wed, 31 May 2006 22:21:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on mail.kromann.info X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=3.1.1 Received: from warp (www.kromann.info [64.186.239.115]) by mail.kromann.info (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BD3E4040C6; Wed, 31 May 2006 22:21:08 -0700 (PDT) To: Steph Fox Cc: 'internals' , 'Antony Dovgal' , Dmitry Stogov , 'Xuefer' , Andi Gutmans X-Mailer: Swwwing 2000 Message-ID: <11491392660720000@9866357972520000.9866341568840000> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: "Frank M. Kromann" Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:21:06 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] tsrm_shutdown() and the CLI SAPI From: frank@kromann.info ("Frank M. Kromann") > >>Yes, it would, given the root cause - but would you really want to break > >>the whole of PHP for an academic exercise? > > > > It's not really an academic exercise. If we know there's a bug someplace > > we should at least look into it and try and understand it. > > Frank's referring to Zeev's three-years-ago decision to simply opt out of > tsrm_shutdown() here... he's suggesting we revert it. > > > Then if we decide to remove the trsm_shutdown call for a good reason > > (circular dependency, blah blah blah) then we can do that and put a nice > > fat comment on why it's the right thing to do. But I do think it's > > benefical to try and understand what's happening. > > Fine, but breaking working code while you're trying to understand what's > happening is far from beneficial to our users. Can't we at least #0 it? There is no need to break code. The shutdown function was commented out for a reason (crash) when that's fixed we can enable that code again. - Frank