For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you believe
that we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final and run a
sanity test for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of them appears to
be too dangerous, but if any of you thinks differently, let me know.
Zeev
Hi Zeev Suraski, you wrote:
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you believe
that we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final and run a
sanity test for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of them appears
to be too dangerous, but if any of you thinks differently, let me know.
Well, I don't know if there has been any progress for static properties
of internal classes. I can understand if there has not been yet, but
it would be a pity to leave that out for 5.1 though.
I know, unfortunately I'm the only one bashing on this piece of the engine :)
Additionally I didn't see the instanceof change comitted to 5.1 as Andi
suggested, so is this gonna happen?
Thanks a lot,
Michael - < mike(@)php.net
At 11:58 PM 8/29/2005, Michael Wallner wrote:
Additionally I didn't see the instanceof change comitted to 5.1 as Andi
suggested, so is this gonna happen?
That was commited. Did you check HEAD?
Andi
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:06:07 +0300
zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) wrote:
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you
believe that we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1
final and run a sanity test for 24 hours? I went over the
patches, none of them appears to be too dangerous, but if any of
you thinks differently, let me know.
At least one patch has to be MFH'ed, the new instanceof commited by
Dmitri last week.
Besides that, a last RC is a safe choice, quiet a lot of commits
have been done since RC1.
Regards,
--Pierre
There's a bunch of open PDO bugs that need to be fixed before we go
with 5.1 final.
--Wez.
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you believe
that we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final and run a
sanity test for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of them appears to
be too dangerous, but if any of you thinks differently, let me know.Zeev
Wez Furlong wrote:
There's a bunch of open PDO bugs that need to be fixed before we go
with 5.1 final.
Do you have some sort of plan/timeline for these getting fixed? Do you
need some help? We can't wait indefinitely on PDO. If you have a list
of outstanding issues I can throw some resources at it.
Also, I see the following 6 failed test cases on my Linux box:
-Bug #33414 [2] (Comprehensive list of incorrect days returned after
strotime() / date() tests) [ext/date/tests/bug33414-2.phpt]
-Bug #16069 [ext/iconv/tests/bug16069.phpt]
-iconv stream filter [ext/iconv/tests/iconv_stream_filter.phpt]
-Bug #31142 test #2 (imap_mail_compose() generates incorrect output)
[ext/imap/tests/bug31142_2.phpt]
-various fputcsv() functionality tests
[ext/standard/tests/file/fputcsv.phpt]
-Bug #27908 (default handler not being called) [ext/xml/tests/bug27908.phpt]
-Rasmus
Would probably help if I included the diffs:
-Bug #33414 [2] (Comprehensive list of incorrect days returned after
strotime() /date()tests) [ext/date/tests/bug33414-2.phpt]
033+ result=Wednesday 1970-01-07 00:00:00 PST 0
033- result=Wednesday 1970-01-06 00:00:00 PST 0
-Bug #16069 [ext/iconv/tests/bug16069.phpt]
001+ ????????????????????????????????????????(?맥??)
001-
?ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???
ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???ߥ?
С???ߥ?С???ߥ?С???(?맥??)
-iconv stream filter [ext/iconv/tests/iconv_stream_filter.phpt]
(related to the last one it looks like)
007+ string(20) "1b244f24332466245824"
008+ string(10) "4e24421b28"
009+ string(2) "4f"
007-
008- Warning: fread(): iconv stream filter ("ISO-2022-JP"=>"EUC-JP"):
invalid multibyte sequence in %s on line %d
009- string(0) ""
010- string(0) ""
011- string(0) ""
-Bug #31142 test #2 (imap_mail_compose() generates incorrect output)
[ext/imap/tests/bug31142_2.phpt]
This one is caused by a segfault. bt is:
#0 0x407545c8 in pthread_mutex_lock () from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#1 0x40906dd8 in free () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2 0x40073d93 in fs_give () from /usr/lib/libc-client.so.2001
#3 0x40070b5b in mail_free_body_parameter () from
/usr/lib/libc-client.so.2001
#4 0x40070a5c in mail_free_body_data () from /usr/lib/libc-client.so.2001
#5 0x40070996 in mail_free_body () from /usr/lib/libc-client.so.2001
#6 0x080f797f in zif_imap_mail_compose (ht=2, return_value=0x84b3ebc,
return_value_ptr=0x0, this_ptr=0x0, return_value_used=1)
at /home/rasmus/php51/ext/imap/php_imap.c:3240
#7 0x08276526 in zend_do_fcall_common_helper_SPEC
(execute_data=0xbfffd6f0) at zend_vm_execute.h:184
#8 0x08275d49 in execute (op_array=0x84af31c) at zend_vm_execute.h:87
#9 0x0825540c in zend_execute_scripts (type=8, retval=Variable "retval"
is not available.
) at /home/rasmus/php51/Zend/zend.c:1078
#10 0x0821eb1b in php_execute_script (primary_file=0xbffffaac) at
/home/rasmus/php51/main/main.c:1675
#11 0x082dd78a in main (argc=3, argv=0xbffffb64) at
/home/rasmus/php51/sapi/cli/php_cli.c:1039
Probably do to a bogus pthread-enabled libc-client on this Debian box.
-various
fputcsv()functionality tests
[ext/standard/tests/file/fputcsv.phpt]
040+ 16 => 'aaa,"\"bbb",ccc',
041+ 17 => 'aaa"\"a""","bbb"',
042+ 18 => '"\""","aaa"""',
043+ 19 => '"\"""",aaa
044+ ',
040- 16 => 'aaa,"\"bbb,ccc',
041- 17 => 'aaa"\"a","bbb"',
042- 18 => '"\"","aaa"',
043- 19 => '"\""",aaa',
-Bug #27908 (default handler not being called) [ext/xml/tests/bug27908.phpt]
001- x_default_handler <root>
002- x_default_handler </root>
-Rasmus
Would probably help if I included the diffs:
-Bug #33414 [2] (Comprehensive list of incorrect days returned after
strotime() /date()tests) [ext/date/tests/bug33414-2.phpt]033+ result=Wednesday 1970-01-07 00:00:00 PST 0
033- result=Wednesday 1970-01-06 00:00:00 PST 0
I already had a look at this, but am not totally done implementing a
fix. Will try to do this ASAP.
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
Also, I see the following 6 failed test cases on my Linux box:
-Bug #16069 [ext/iconv/tests/bug16069.phpt]
According to the last two comments in that bug report, glibc iconv()
does not support CP932 and this test should be skipped instead of
failing. No idea how to check for that in the test system, so I'll
leave it to Jani or someone else.
-iconv stream filter [ext/iconv/tests/iconv_stream_filter.phpt]
This test exhibits wildly different behavior depending on the platform
and/or version of iconv library. On BSD the last portion of it fails
with "unknown error" instead of "invalid multibyte sequence". On Linux
(with glibc iconv) it moronically goes ahead and actually decodes the
ROT-13 "encrypted" data without outputting any errors. I don't think
there's much we can do here unless we're willing to invest an
inordinate amount of effort into tracking down specific iconv()
versions and making allowances for them everywhere.
-Andrei
Hello Andrei,
Tuesday, August 30, 2005, 10:16:43 PM, you wrote:
Also, I see the following 6 failed test cases on my Linux box:
-Bug #16069 [ext/iconv/tests/bug16069.phpt]
According to the last two comments in that bug report, glibc
iconv()
does not support CP932 and this test should be skipped instead of
failing. No idea how to check for that in the test system, so I'll
leave it to Jani or someone else.
-iconv stream filter [ext/iconv/tests/iconv_stream_filter.phpt]
This test exhibits wildly different behavior depending on the platform
and/or version of iconv library. On BSD the last portion of it fails
with "unknown error" instead of "invalid multibyte sequence". On Linux
(with glibc iconv) it moronically goes ahead and actually decodes the
ROT-13 "encrypted" data without outputting any errors. I don't think
there's much we can do here unless we're willing to invest an
inordinate amount of effort into tracking down specificiconv()
versions and making allowances for them everywhere.
In this case at least the result should be WARN instead of FAIL.
Best regards,
Marcus
Also, I see the following 6 failed test cases on my Linux box:
-Bug #16069 [ext/iconv/tests/bug16069.phpt]
According to the last two comments in that bug report, glibc
iconv()does not
support CP932 and this test should be skipped instead of failing. No idea how
to check for that in the test system, so I'll leave it to Jani or someone
else.
That test HAS a check for it but it doesn't work. :)
I don't know how you should test if you have the support or not so I leave
that to someone else.
--Jani
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
-Bug #31142 test #2 (imap_mail_compose() generates incorrect output)
[ext/imap/tests/bug31142_2.phpt]
This bug was just fixed.
Ilia
http://bugs.php.net/search.php?cmd=display&status=Open&bug_type%5B%5D=PDO+related
http://pecl.php.net/bugs/search.php?cmd=display&status=Open&package_name%5B%5D=PDO&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_FIREBIRD&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_MYSQL&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_OCI&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_ODBC&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_PGSQL&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_SQLITE
They sound pretty straight-forward (although #33707 and #34233 sound a
bit harder), so if you do have some resources to throw at them, I'd
really appreciate it--I've just been too damned busy lately, and don't
forsee having the time to sit down and get it done for a week or so.
--Wez.
Wez Furlong wrote:
There's a bunch of open PDO bugs that need to be fixed before we go
with 5.1 final.Do you have some sort of plan/timeline for these getting fixed? Do you
need some help? We can't wait indefinitely on PDO. If you have a list
of outstanding issues I can throw some resources at it.
Rasmus,
please send an update what you think you can do on your side...
Thanks,
Andi
At 08:33 PM 8/30/2005, Wez Furlong wrote:
http://bugs.php.net/search.php?cmd=display&status=Open&bug_type%5B%5D=PDO+related
http://pecl.php.net/bugs/search.php?cmd=display&status=Open&package_name%5B%5D=PDO&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_FIREBIRD&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_MYSQL&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_OCI&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_ODBC&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_PGSQL&package_name%5B%5D=PDO_SQLITEThey sound pretty straight-forward (although #33707 and #34233 sound a
bit harder), so if you do have some resources to throw at them, I'd
really appreciate it--I've just been too damned busy lately, and don't
forsee having the time to sit down and get it done for a week or so.--Wez.
Wez Furlong wrote:
There's a bunch of open PDO bugs that need to be fixed before we go
with 5.1 final.Do you have some sort of plan/timeline for these getting fixed? Do you
need some help? We can't wait indefinitely on PDO. If you have a list
of outstanding issues I can throw some resources at it.
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you believe that
we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final and run a sanity test
for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of them appears to be too
dangerous, but if any of you thinks differently, let me know.
Should I also commit:
http://files.derickrethans.nl/patches/e_recoverable_error-php-5.1-20050826.diff.txt
?
regards,
Derick
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you believe that
we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final and run a sanity test
for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of them appears to be too
dangerous, but if any of you thinks differently, let me know.Should I also commit:
http://files.derickrethans.nl/patches/e_recoverable_error-php-5.1-20050826.diff.txt
?
Should I assume that if nobody replies, there are no objections?
Derick
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you believe that
we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final and run a sanity test
for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of them appears to be too
dangerous, but if any of you thinks differently, let me know.Should I also commit:
http://files.derickrethans.nl/patches/e_recoverable_error-php-5.1-20050826.diff.txt
?Should I assume that if nobody replies, there are no objections?
I'm replying now and I don't want to see something like this in 5.1.
This is new stuff, new stuff goes to HEAD..
--Jani
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you believe
that we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final and run a
sanity test for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of them appears
to be too dangerous, but if any of you thinks differently, let me know.
Never got a clear response on whether or not that
zend_shutdown_constants(TSRMLS_C);/zend_destroy_rsrc_list(&EG(persistent_list)
TSRMLS_CC); patch (ZTS leak thread) could be committed. I realized I
might've been misleading when I said I'd "temporarily plugged that leak" I
meant in my own local checkout, not in CVS. As it's a general bug I'd
like to spread it across stable branches 4.4/5.0 and dev branches 5.1/HEAD
(with proper timing given RC cycles of course).
Index: Zend/zend.c
RCS file: /repository/ZendEngine2/zend.c,v
retrieving revision 1.308
diff -u -r1.308 zend.c
--- Zend/zend.c 3 Aug 2005 13:30:45 -0000 1.308
+++ Zend/zend.c 31 Aug 2005 14:39:28 -0000
@@ -486,6 +486,8 @@
static void executor_globals_dtor(zend_executor_globals *executor_globals
TSRMLS_DC)
{
zend_ini_shutdown(TSRMLS_C);
-
zend_shutdown_constants(TSRMLS_C); -
zend_destroy_rsrc_list(&EG(persistent_list) TSRMLS_CC);
}
@@ -706,11 +708,9 @@
zend_shutdown_extensions(TSRMLS_C);
free(zend_version_info);
-
zend_shutdown_constants(TSRMLS_C); free(GLOBAL_FUNCTION_TABLE); free(GLOBAL_CLASS_TABLE);
#ifdef ZTS
-
zend_destroy_rsrc_list(&EG(persistent_list) TSRMLS_CC); zend_hash_destroy(GLOBAL_CONSTANTS_TABLE); free(GLOBAL_CONSTANTS_TABLE); GLOBAL_FUNCTION_TABLE = NULL;
I would suggest bumping up the libxm2 minimum version to 2.6.8. Had
forgotten about this until a recent bug, but 2.6.6 and 2.6.7 can cause
memory corruption thats fixed in 2.6.8.
Rob
Zeev Suraski wrote:
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you
believe that we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final
and run a sanity test for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of
them appears to be too dangerous, but if any of you thinks
differently, let me know.Zeev
Done. All distros should have at least 2.6.8. Most have 2.6.16 or above..
--Jani
I would suggest bumping up the libxm2 minimum version to 2.6.8. Had forgotten
about this until a recent bug, but 2.6.6 and 2.6.7 can cause memory corruption
thats fixed in 2.6.8.Rob
Zeev Suraski wrote:
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you believe
that we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final and run a
sanity test for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of them appears to
be too dangerous, but if any of you thinks differently, let me know.Zeev
Zeev Suraski wrote:
For those of you who submitted patches to 5.1 since RC1 - do you
believe that we need another RC or can we go ahead and roll 5.1 final
and run a sanity test for 24 hours? I went over the patches, none of
them appears to be too dangerous, but if any of you thinks
differently, let me know.
Is it possible to add a small feature to the xml stuff prior to 5.1
release as I assume an RC2 is going to go out.
http://www.ctindustries.net/patches/xmldiff.txt (made against HEAD)
I know its late in the game, but need to be able to perform some
Canonicalization on XML, but until I have time to implement it, it has
to be done manually but need to be able to support empty tags serialized
to include both the start and end tags.
Change also removes some libxml version checks no longer needed and a
couple of new flags - 2 for canonicalization and 1 for better memory
optimization.
Rob