At 12:51 PM 7/23/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On July 23, 2004 12:40 pm, you wrote:
> At 11:54 AM 7/23/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >On July 23, 2004 11:42 am, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > > Why do we need one extra byte?
> >
> >We do not.
> >
> > > Anyway, the question is if we should return to alloca() or not. I am
> > > slightly in favor but don't feel very strongly about it.
> >
> >Perhaps we could try a combination of the two, to ensure that no script is
> >terminated due to a PHP crash if allocating on the stack fails. By default
> > we can use alloca() if that fails to allocate the memory, we could use
> > emalloc() and set a flag free code indicating which free function should
> > be used.
>
> I'm hesitant to slow down the general case (even if it's just an additional
> if()) statement. I'd revert to alloca() and we can always add a
> --paranoid-stack-allocation directive to configure to use emalloc() :)
The problem is that that this causes certain large script to just crash,
without any meaningful information. Is the cost of 2 if()s really that
pefromance prohibitive?
No it's not. But 2 and 2 and 2 is :)
I guess we can go with the if()'s for now.... Argh...
Want to write a patch?
Andi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
