Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66218 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5331 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2013 21:29:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Feb 2013 21:29:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bobwei9@hotmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bobwei9@hotmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.80 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.55.111.80 blu0-omc2-s5.blu0.hotmail.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [65.55.111.80] ([65.55.111.80:18922] helo=blu0-omc2-s5.blu0.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 88/F6-10787-8A7DB215 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:29:14 -0500 Received: from BLU0-SMTP175 ([65.55.111.72]) by blu0-omc2-s5.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:29:10 -0800 X-EIP: [FsPi2NOEl7mU9xJjhM0rg+DBVTmlpMM/] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from bob-weinands-imac.fritz.box ([78.141.134.76]) by BLU0-SMTP175.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:29:08 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) In-Reply-To: <1361826106.2376.78.camel@guybrush> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:29:05 +0100 CC: PHP Mailing List Developers Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: <1361810738.2376.74.camel@guybrush> <512BA931.7010909@sugarcrm.com> <512BB284.4060900@sugarcrm.com> <1361826106.2376.78.camel@guybrush> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2013 21:29:08.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[2519D1E0:01CE139F] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About restricting the recursive implicit calls From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) Am 25.2.2013 um 22:01 schrieb Johannes Schl=FCter = : > On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 20:36 +0100, Bob Weinand wrote: >>=20 >> I can increase the default limit to 1000, but if it is too high it = has >> exactly no sense. >=20 > Which is exactly the issue i mentioned about being a "good default" >=20 >> We don't discuss about xDebug, but about integrating it into the >> core?=20 >=20 > Well, nobody extracted the relevant pieces for a production = environment > from xdebug and put it on pecl, so nobody had a need for this on a > production system ;-) >=20 > johannes > (who is +/-0 on this) I've pushed a new commit to github. Changed the ini setting name to max_implicit_function_calls (max_implicit_function_call_nesting_level would be more self documenting but is way too long). If I knew anything about C programming etc., I'd simply misuse the = original purpose of xDebug and only use it for this functionality if needed. Bob p.s.: and as there is a simply inexistent CPU cost: why not?=