Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64924 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 56042 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2013 08:20:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Jan 2013 08:20:16 -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 67.192.241.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.163 smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.163] ([67.192.241.163:50408] helo=smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B9/34-27428-EBFB3F05 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 03:20:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9A359270373; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 03:20:11 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 4FF9F270480; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 03:20:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50F3BFBA.9070701@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:20:10 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dmitry Stogov CC: PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Fix for duplicate magic methods calls (bug #63462) From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! I made a fix for bug #63462 - https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/258 - which changes a bit how we do guards by unmangling the names before applying guards. This is a slight change of behavior and also means that all private vars with the same name would use the same guard (all protected and public vars with the same name are the same var anyway, so they should be doing it in any case). Since it's a behavior change in core, I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes to see if nothing is broken by it. All tests pass but better safe then sorry. If no problems found in it, I'll commit it soon. Thanks, -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227