Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65351
Return-Path: <johannes@schlueters.de>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 8145 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2013 11:14:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 29 Jan 2013 11:14:29 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.211.66 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de
X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.211.66 config.schlueters.de  
Received: from [217.114.211.66] ([217.114.211.66:35390] helo=config.schlueters.de)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 16/17-07604-41FA7015 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:14:29 -0500
Received: from [192.168.2.20] (ppp-93-104-29-211.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.29.211])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by config.schlueters.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE1B0653B3;
	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:14:25 +0100 (CET)
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <1359457543.3916.56.camel@guybrush>
References: <d0d4398d8ad51ffa330d9d960bcd91a5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1359457543.3916.56.camel@guybrush>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:15:22 +0100
Message-ID: <1359458122.3916.67.camel@guybrush>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)

On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 12:05 +0100, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> exploit some of the bugs (<?php new stdclass; ?>, or any other internal
> class, was all that was needed for one of the bugs) there were way too
> few reports.

Ah, that specific bug was 5.4-only, back then 5.4 was quite new. But
there were other bugs, too.

johannes