# php 5.3, memory leak

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/47999
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/47999
- Started by Alexey Zakhlestin on 2010-04-17T13:22:42+00:00
- Messages: 2
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #47999 — Alexey Zakhlestin — 2010-04-17T13:22:42+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/47999#47999

I was doing some tests with long-running scripts recently and noticed that 5.3 is leaking memory in cases where 5.2 wasn't.
Looks like there is bug report already: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=48781

PHP 5.3 was announced as more suitable for long-running scripts than 5.2 was, because of circular-references garbage collector.
But this bug undermines this. So, I believe this bug is a critical one. Should be a blocker for 5.3.3

Bug-report tells that this bug was assigned to Dmitry, but, as there were not comments from him, I am not even sure if he's actually aware of the problem.

Did anyone try to investigate the issue?

---

## #48005 — Dmitry Stogov — 2010-04-19T07:59:07+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/47999#48005 · In reply to: #47999

Hi Alexey,

I'll try to take care of it.
It's definitely a bug, however I'm not sure how to fix it yet.
(I've updated the bug report).

Thanks. Dmitry.

Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> I was doing some tests with long-running scripts recently and noticed that 5.3 is leaking memory in cases where 5.2 wasn't.
> Looks like there is bug report already: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=48781
> 
> PHP 5.3 was announced as more suitable for long-running scripts than 5.2 was, because of circular-references garbage collector.
> But this bug undermines this. So, I believe this bug is a critical one. Should be a blocker for 5.3.3
> 
> Bug-report tells that this bug was assigned to Dmitry, but, as there were not comments from him, I am not even sure if he's actually aware of the problem.
> 
> Did anyone try to investigate the issue?