Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66371 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 19161 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2013 21:43:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Feb 2013 21:43:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:45347] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 55/33-25879-19FCF215 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:43:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4791EDE13F; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:43:41 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:43:39 -0500 (EST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Anthony Ferrara cc: "internals@lists.php.net" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Include XDebug and Suhosin Patch in Core for 5.5 From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > It appears that xdebug is borking generator exception handling. Without > xdebug the following two tests pass, but with it they fail: > > Generator::throw() where the exception is caught in the generator > [Zend/tests/generators/throw_caught.phpt] > Generator::throw() where the generator throws a different exception > [Zend/tests/generators/throw_rethrow.phpt] I guess that's because something hijacks the throw exception handler, it's the samething with SOAP. This should be addressed so that there is a chain/set of handlers instead. > And I'm not saying that you're not doing a good job keeping it up. I'm > just saying that it needs to be kept up, so why not put it right in > core where it can be maintained together. The only difference between > this and ZO+ in this case is... Well, there really isn't one. Both > opcode caches and debuggers are WIDELY installed. Both are blockers > for upgrading. Both are supported well (now that ZO+ is open sourced > that is). So the drive and justification for pulling one into core > should completely fit the other... I don't want it. cheers, Derick