Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:67737 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62328 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2013 18:46:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Jun 2013 18:46:37 -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] ([217.114.211.66:46322] helo=config.schlueters.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F1/B0-58445-B8CF1C15 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:46:36 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.74] (g230131096.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.230.131.96]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by config.schlueters.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2650E65081; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:46:33 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:43:04 +0200 Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" To: Anthony Ferrara X-Mailer: iPod Mail (10B329) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Disabling the GC during shutdown From: johannes@schlueters.de (=?utf-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?=) On Jun 19, 2013, at 19:46, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > 1. Technically, all we need to do is force GC_G(gc_enabled) =3D 0 in > shutdown. But we could also use zend_alter_ini_entry which has the same > effect. The question comes is there any reason to go through the overhead > of altering the ini entry instead of the global directly? We do access the= > global directly in other areas (but it's typically only set via ini)... If possible try to prevent users from shooting their feet by reenabling via i= ni_set() or gc_collect_cycles() or such. > Additionally, considering that this does solve a segfault, is it worth > nominating this for 5.3? Or is it too risky (or something else I'm > missing)... See my previous mail to the list ...=20 johannes=