Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76688
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: laruence@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLv9c4QWz19NpK5QXX-oz-HCSa-VyreCKKy6_gzBQ07xPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_M7nKiVLYT0vWaq8wg==Yz0ZZC1V_ke=t71rpWqKPepA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DBD5ACA0-F06A-4A14-9419-E9233A8EB178@zend.com> <CA+9eiLv9c4QWz19NpK5QXX-oz-HCSa-VyreCKKy6_gzBQ07xPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:12:06 +0800
Message-ID: <CABBJUpfZe2xQncW6h_7h-WD0Tijr4RVYVkMtabXkD-wV+bZZTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Abstract Syntax Tree
From: laruence@php.net (Laruence)

Hey:

    I find a problem while I was trying play with the patch

Generating phar.php
Generating phar.phar

Fatal error: Out of memory (allocated 786432) at
/home/huixinchen/opensource/github/php-src/Zend/zend_arena.h:69 (tried
to allocate 34359738400 bytes) in
/home/huixinchen/opensource/github/php-src/ext/phar/phar.php on line
163
make: *** [ext/phar/phar.phar] Error 255
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

   is this a knew issue?

thanks

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi Andi,
>
> We already discussed most of semantic changes introduced in AST patch.
> Most of them came from another approved RFC
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/uniform_variable_syntax
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nikita,
>>
>> I reviewed the AST RFC on my way to vote but there was something that
>> wasn=E2=80=99t clear to me.
>> This patch introduces some semantic/behavioral changes in addition to th=
e
>> AST.
>> Are these as a side-effect of how AST was implemented? Or are they
>> unrelated to the AST patch?
>> I think some of them make sense but I=E2=80=99m having a bit of a hard t=
ime
>> separating out the benefits of the AST (which I really like) and making
>> other changes to semantics w/o really understanding if they are
>> side-effects and we have no choice vs. we=E2=80=99re trying to solve for=
 two
>> separate items in one RFC.
>> Any BC breaks here we think could bite us?
>>
>> Any insight would be much appreciated.
>> Thanks!
>> Andi
>>
>> On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:41 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi internals!
>> >
>> > I've opened the vote on the Abstract Syntax Tree RFC:
>> >
>> >    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_syntax_tree#vote
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Nikita
>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>



--=20
Laruence  Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/