Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75939 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3563 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2014 09:20:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Jul 2014 09:20:50 -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 65.55.111.95 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.55.111.95 blu004-omc2s20.hotmail.com Received: from [65.55.111.95] ([65.55.111.95:50315] helo=BLU004-OMC2S20.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FD/25-21666-07E7FC35 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:20:50 -0400 Received: from BLU436-SMTP167 ([65.55.111.71]) by BLU004-OMC2S20.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22712); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:20:48 -0700 X-TMN: [IUWj9fM+RYf26+O9vU22C6OOrf/kOeoN] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from bobweinandsimac.fritz.box ([78.141.132.157]) by BLU436-SMTP167.smtp.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.0.9200.16384); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:20:46 -0700 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_021C6C52-472E-487E-890D-2BAA349F1F27" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:20:42 +0200 CC: Nikita Popov , Stas Malyshev , Julien Pauli , PHP Internals References: To: Dmitry Stogov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2014 09:20:46.0511 (UTC) FILETIME=[62B023F0:01CFA657] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Weird constant expression syntax and bug From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) --Apple-Mail=_021C6C52-472E-487E-890D-2BAA349F1F27 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Yes. Did you see my thoughts before? > I'm just wondering if we can't somehow deeply copy the asts for = opcache between compile time and run time in pass_two() (If I'm not = wrong pass_two() has some hook for zend extensions?) >=20 > Then we can fix the ast and don't have to take care of opcache at run = time (=3D when the (dynamic) asts will be evaluated). It'd maybe even be = a bit faster as it then doesn't have to copy so much at run-time. ^ these? I'm also not very happy with it. I think I just should remove that restriction of run-time completely. = It's just causing more confusion than it helps=85 I don't even remember why I even added that restriction there. Bob Am 23.7.2014 um 10:47 schrieb Dmitry Stogov : > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Bob Weinand = wrote: > Hey, thank you for looking into it :-) >=20 > Am 23.7.2014 um 00:23 schrieb Dmitry Stogov : > > hi Bob, > > > > I still think that current array usage in constant expressions is = not > > consistent and dangerous. It "smells" to me, and I think it may = bring > > troubles in the future even if the existing known bugs are fixed. > > > > I see few issues: > > > > 1) It is possible to declare array class constants however they = can't be > > used. I can't remember why array in constants were prohibited before = and > > what problems they brought. The following script works without any = warnings. > > > > > class Foo { > > const BAR =3D [1]; > > } > > ?> >=20 > Because it's actually valid. You don't use it in non-static scalar = context. >=20 > > 2) In some cases array constants may be used, but not in the others. > > > > > class Foo { > > const BAR =3D [0]; > > static $a =3D Foo::BAR; // constant array usage > > } > > var_dump(Foo::$a); // prints array > > var_dump(Foo::BAR); // emits fatal error > > ?> >=20 > They can only be used in static scalar contexts. >=20 > I wanted to introduce constants to be used and dereferenced also at = run-time, but that requires a RFC. > If anyone would allow me to introduce that still now (it'd be a = relatively simple patch), I'll happily do it. > The issue just was that I was a bit late to create a RFC (beta freeze = etc...) >=20 > > 3) The fact that constants are allowed in compile time and even = stored, but > > can't be used confuses me as well as the error message "PHP Fatal = error: > > Arrays are not allowed in constants at run-time". >=20 > See above... >=20 > Yeah all the issues above (1-3) are actually a single inconsistency. > You may find it logical, but I think differently. >=20 > > 4) Zend/tests/constant_expressions_arrays.phpt crashes whit > > opcache.protect_memory=3D1 (that indicates petential SHM memory = corruption) > > > > This may be fixed with the following patch: > > > > diff --git a/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h b/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h > > index 144930e..f1aab9a 100644 > > --- a/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h > > +++ b/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h > > @@ -4323,6 +4323,16 @@ static int ZEND_FASTCALL > > ZEND_DECLARE_CONST_SPEC_CONST_CONST_HANDLER(ZEND_OPCOD > > c.value =3D *tmp_ptr; > > } else { > > INIT_PZVAL_COPY(&c.value, val); > > + if (Z_TYPE(c.value) =3D=3D IS_ARRAY) { > > + HashTable *ht; > > + > > + ALLOC_HASHTABLE(ht); > > + zend_hash_init(ht, > > zend_hash_num_elements(Z_ARRVAL(c.value)), NULL, ZVAL_PTR_DTOR, 0); > > + zend_hash_copy(ht, Z_ARRVAL(c.value), > > (copy_ctor_func_t) zval_deep_copy, NULL, sizeof(zval *)); > > + Z_ARRVAL(c.value) =3D ht; > > + } else { > > + zval_copy_ctor(&c.value); > > + } > > zval_copy_ctor(&c.value); > > } > > c.flags =3D CONST_CS; /* non persistent, case sensetive */ >=20 > I assume you wanted to patch zend_vm_def.h, not zend_vm_execute.h. >=20 > Yes. Of course. > =20 > If you can fix it, please apply the patch, I'm not so deep into = opcache to take responsibility for that one. >=20 > OK. This part of the patch must be safe. I'll apply it later. > =20 >=20 > > 5) Circular constant references crash (found by Nikita) > > > > > class A { > > const FOO =3D [self::BAR]; > > const BAR =3D [self::FOO]; > > } > > var_dump(A::FOO); // crashes because of infinity recursion > > ?> >=20 > That isn't a specific problems with arrays: >=20 > class test { > const BAR =3D 0 + self::FOO; > const FOO =3D 0 + self::BAR; > } > var_dump(test::BAR); >=20 > just segfaults too because of the exact same issue >=20 > Oh... This is really bad. > It means we have a general AST evaluation problem. > It must be fixed before 5.6 release. > I'll try to make another attempt in the evening today or tomorrow. >=20 > Thanks. Dmitry. > =20 >=20 > > I didn't find any useful way to fix it. One of the ideas with = following > > hack seemed to work, but it breaks another test > > (Zend/tests/constant_expressions_classes.phpt) > > > > diff --git a/Zend/zend_ast.c b/Zend/zend_ast.c > > index 12f9405..8798737 100644 > > --- a/Zend/zend_ast.c > > +++ b/Zend/zend_ast.c > > @@ -251,10 +251,22 @@ ZEND_API void zend_ast_evaluate(zval *result, > > zend_ast *ast, zend_class_entry *s > > zval_dtor(&op2); > > break; > > case ZEND_CONST: > > - *result =3D *ast->u.val; > > - zval_copy_ctor(result); > > - if (IS_CONSTANT_TYPE(Z_TYPE_P(result))) { > > - zval_update_constant_ex(&result, 1, = scope > > TSRMLS_CC); > > + if (EG(in_execution) && EG(opline_ptr) && > > *EG(opline_ptr) && > > + ((*EG(opline_ptr))->opcode =3D=3D = ZEND_RECV_INIT || > > + (*EG(opline_ptr))->opcode =3D=3D > > ZEND_DECLARE_CONST)) { > > + *result =3D *ast->u.val; > > + zval_copy_ctor(result); > > + if = (IS_CONSTANT_TYPE(Z_TYPE_P(result))) { > > + = zval_update_constant_ex(&result, 1, > > scope TSRMLS_CC); > > + } > > + } else { > > + if = (IS_CONSTANT_TYPE(Z_TYPE_P(ast->u.val))) > > { > > + > > zval_update_constant_ex(&ast->u.val, 1, scope TSRMLS_CC); > > + *result =3D *ast->u.val; > > + } else { > > + *result =3D *ast->u.val; > > + zval_copy_ctor(result); > > + } > > } > > break; > > case ZEND_BOOL_AND: > > > > I spent few hours trying to find a solution, but failed. May be my = ideas > > could lead you to something... > > > > Otherwise, I would recommend to remove this feature from PHP-5.6. > > > > Thanks. Dmitry. >=20 >=20 > Bob >=20 > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Dmitry Stogov = wrote: > > > >> Hi Bob, > >> > >> Now I think it's not fixable by design :( > >> > >> I'll try to think about it later today. > >> Could you please collect all related issues. > >> > >> Thanks. Dmitry. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Bob Weinand = wrote: > >> > >>> Am 2.7.2014 um 15:43 schrieb Dmitry Stogov : > >>> > >>> I don't have good ideas out of the box and I probably won't be = able to > >>> look into this before next week. > >>> > >>> > >>> Hey, I still have no real idea how to solve it without breaking = opcache. > >>> > >>> This one seems to be considered like a blocking bug for 5.6. > >>> > >>> Could you please try to fix this in a sane manner? > >>> > >>> Bob --Apple-Mail=_021C6C52-472E-487E-890D-2BAA349F1F27--