Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89325
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_nfhOwQ7Nvp_JCVHuz0m448Z0K03y5EuV4VKBP2Zu5Wng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:05:24 +0100
Cc: Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net>, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>,
 Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, Phil Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>,
 Xinchen Hui <laruence@php.net>, Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>,
 Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <14D843AC-792B-4537-8859-023B98127E7D@zend.com>
References: <CAAyV7nG9E-7STWq2Hpe=y5Uf0nWzGMhka+FUX1p1FVNtYNVTJQ@mail.gmail.com> <112FFBCD-8445-40BC-B92F-3A97D3E97C4C@zend.com> <CAAyV7nE0bQba3Wr2yi8FbtDfDA=8ZSFz9dbQG5uZ+eF9bick2A@mail.gmail.com> <56523F74.9040708@lerdorf.com> <06a601d125c0$99d5cfd0$cd816f70$@belski.net> <CAL=_i_kArsu2JGYtdZBa-mah+k6DL-cCWtiX16mVcTsxH3WDrw@mail.gmail.com> <CABBJUpdTUwvdtK+uRc386R4pceocXCsSEd9s4bu4jvH87MD-8A@mail.gmail.com> <CABDNdAG84+cW9TohGbA2r0ik5=yrHVyAd5g2wk8dKRh=LeqvPQ@mail.gmail.com> <5652D782.40601@lerdorf.com> <F037E7ED-B9B0-47DD-9B42-4EEC2B267118@php.net> <EFB1D7E4-C594-4F15-A6A0-5D8344BA8F79@lerdorf.com> <CAMUwpuQ_1Nsyj3tV_=QZBnwQ6tq-iNegRX+9xYXOsQneNVd=sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL=_i_nfhOwQ7Nvp_JCVHuz0m448Z0K03y5EuV4VKBP2Zu5Wng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] INDRECT in arrays causes count() to become unpredictable
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)



> On 23 =D7=91=D7=A0=D7=95=D7=91=D7=B3 2015, at 14:04, Joe Watkins <pthreads=
@pthreads.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> No one is expecting 0.0 or any version to be bug free, but the simplicity o=
f the fix says nothing about the seriousness of the bug. I think it quite se=
rious _because_ we are a few days from GA, had this been found a month ago i=
t wouldn't seem so serious.
>=20

No, but both the seriousness of the bug AND the simplicity of the fix sit sq=
uarely outside any sort of "critical" definition.

The bug simply has the unfortunate connotation of being associated with arra=
ys, but is not - it's only about count()ing symbol tables.  The fix itself i=
s very localized too and was peer reviewed, so I don't feel as if we'd be li=
ving on the edge of we'd be releasing without an extra RC.

My main concern is that of we're treating this issue as a semi blocker - it'=
s almost unthinkable we won't find something of similar (small) magnitude in=
 the next seven days.  That's my only concern with releasing next week,m.  W=
ould people here again demand to delay, even if the impact is very limited -=
 as is the case with this count() issue?  If it wasn't for that concern, I'd=
 probably be in favor of delaying.

Zeev=