Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60284 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25402 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2012 16:43:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Apr 2012 16:43:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.193 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.193 smtp193.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.193] ([67.192.241.193:38721] helo=smtp193.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 98/80-34190-328D69F4 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:43:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp19.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 09F083C818D; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:43:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp19.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id B697B3C816B; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F96D81E.5090007@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:43:10 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philip Olson CC: PHP Internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] get_magic_quotes_gpc() returns false instead of 0 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > https://bugs.php.net/61784 > > The get_magic_quotes_gpc() function returns 0/1 before 5.4, but now > it returns boolean false. Instead it should return 0. Fixing this > feels like a bug fix, which would go in 5.4.1. Thoughts? I do not see a reason to hold 5.4.1 for this. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227