I don't think it helps. It won't inline these functions in most cases anyway, and having or not having a symbol shouldn't make a difference. I'd prefer to stick to our standards and keep all extensions the same. Who knows if/when we'll want to play around with the symbols also. It could come in handly with dlls.
Andi > -----Original Message----- > From: Ilia Alshanetsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Ilia Alshanetsky > Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 9:59 AM > To: Andi Gutmans > Cc: 'Nuno Lopes'; php-cvs@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src(PHP_5_2) /ext/bz2 bz2.c > php_bz2.h /ext/ctype ctype.c php_ctype.h /ext/json json.c > php_json.h /ext/pspell php_pspell.h pspell.c /ext/tidy > php_tidy.h tidy.c /ext/zlib php_zlib.h zlib.c zlib_fopen_wrapper.c > > Andi, > > I think the idea here was to minimize memory utilization and > allow the compiler to optimize the code better, something > that having functions defined as statics appears to help with. > > > On 26-Aug-06, at 11:30 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > Why is this important? We never defined these as static. As long as > > you move them to the .c file (for whatever reason you have > that might > > be > > justified) > > you really don't have to define them as static IMO. > > Ilia Alshanetsky > > > > -- PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
