Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:45855 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 39411 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2009 13:14:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Oct 2009 13:14:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php-php-dev@m.gmane.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=news@ger.gmane.org; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.12 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php-php-dev@m.gmane.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.91.229.12 lo.gmane.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [80.91.229.12] ([80.91.229.12:44743] helo=lo.gmane.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 01/34-15002-A290FDA4 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:14:20 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1N0b0h-0000fI-Uc for internals@lists.php.net; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:51 +0200 Received: from hartes-php.de ([85.214.110.30]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:51 +0200 Received: from sb by hartes-php.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:51 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:12:50 -0700 Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <498B4F52.4000608@zend.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hartes-php.de User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) In-Reply-To: <498B4F52.4000608@zend.com> Sender: news Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] CG(zend_linecol) From: sb@sebastian-bergmann.de (Sebastian Bergmann) Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> Would it be possible to implement CG(zend_linecol) in addition to >> CG(zend_lineno)? As far I can see, this is a missing prerequisite for >> Xdebug to report more fine-grained code coverage, for instance. > > Unless we put this inside each opcode, I'm not sure it'd help xdebug too > much. And I'm not sure it is worth inflating the opcodes. > Also, I'm not sure scanner now knows enough to do it - though maybe it > can be made to know it. Did anyone look into this yet? I still think that it would be beneficial to have this information. -- Sebastian Bergmann Co-Founder and Principal Consultant http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/