dooooooooooooooooooalllllllllocccccccccccccccccaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, damnit On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:54:27 -0700, Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >
-- ..I....I.. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php