Hi Brian,
- Original Message -
From: "shire"
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009
Matt Wilmas wrote:
[...]
How about this?
#define SET_DOUBLE_QUOTES_SCANNED_LENGTH(len) CG(doc_comment_len) = (len)
#define GET_DOUBLE_QUOTES_SCANNED_LENGTH() CG(doc_comment_len)
Sure, works for me ;-)
Cool. :
Matt Wilmas wrote:
Gotcha. If something changes, YYFILL -- or something to handle what
needs to be done -- could just be added to the manual parts as
necessary, right?
Sorry forget to reply on this one, but yeah we'd have to do a manual call to
YYFILL or a check or whatever we come up with w
Matt Wilmas wrote:
Hi Brian,
- Original Message -
From: "shire"
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009
Hey Matt,
Matt Wilmas wrote:
+/* To save initial string length after scanning to first variable,
CG(doc_comment_len) can be reused */
+#define double_quotes_scanned_len CG(doc_comment_len)
+
Hi Brian,
- Original Message -
From: "shire"
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009
Hey Matt,
Matt Wilmas wrote:
+/* To save initial string length after scanning to first variable,
CG(doc_comment_len) can be reused */
+#define double_quotes_scanned_len CG(doc_comment_len)
+
(minor) Maybe we s
Hey Matt,
Matt Wilmas wrote:
+/* To save initial string length after scanning to first variable,
CG(doc_comment_len) can be reused */
+#define double_quotes_scanned_len CG(doc_comment_len)
+
(minor) Maybe we should rename this var if we're going to use it for
other
purposes, this doesn't rea
Hi Dmitry,
- Original Message -
From: "Dmitry Stogov"
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009
Hi Matt,
I wasn't able to look into all details of the patch, but in general I like
it, as it fixes bugs and makes scanner smaller. I think you can commit it.
OK, you mean before the freeze for RC2...?
Hi Brian,
- Original Message -
From: "shire"
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009
Hey Matt,
Thanks for posting, sorry for not having a chance to reply to this sooner.
Maybe couple things from the patch,
+/* To save initial string length after scanning to first variable,
CG(doc_comment_len) c
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:51 PM, shire wrote:
> Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM, shire wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding the ZEND_MMAP_AHEAD issue and the temp. fix that Dmitry put in
>>> we
>>> need to find a solution to that, perhaps I can play with that this week
>>> t
Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM, shire wrote:
Regarding the ZEND_MMAP_AHEAD issue and the temp. fix that Dmitry put in we
need to find a solution to that, perhaps I can play with that this week too
as I think I'm seeing some related issues in my testing of 5.3. Essent
Hi,
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM, shire wrote:
> Regarding the ZEND_MMAP_AHEAD issue and the temp. fix that Dmitry put in we
> need to find a solution to that, perhaps I can play with that this week too
> as I think I'm seeing some related issues in my testing of 5.3. Essentially
> we abuse ZEN
Hi Matt,
I wasn't able to look into all details of the patch, but in general I
like it, as it fixes bugs and makes scanner smaller. I think you can
commit it.
Although this patch doesn't fix the EOF handling related to mmap().
Thanks. Dmitry.
Matt Wilmas wrote:
Hi guys,
- Original Mes
Hey Matt,
Thanks for posting, sorry for not having a chance to reply to this sooner.
Maybe couple things from the patch,
+/* To save initial string length after scanning to first variable,
CG(doc_comment_len) can be reused */
+#define double_quotes_scanned_len CG(doc_comment_len)
+
(mino
Hi guys,
- Original Message -
From: "Nuno Lopes"
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009
The patch looks generally ok. However I'll need a few more days to
review it carefully and throughly. (you can merge it in the meantime if
you want).
I'm just slighty concern with the amount of parsing we
The patch looks generally ok. However I'll need a few more days to
review it carefully and throughly. (you can merge it in the meantime if
you want).
I'm just slighty concern with the amount of parsing we are now doing by
hand, and with the possible (local) security bugs we might be
introduci
On 30.04.2009, at 19:18, Nuno Lopes wrote:
The patch looks generally ok. However I'll need a few more days to
review it carefully and throughly. (you can merge it in the meantime
if you want).
I'm just slighty concern with the amount of parsing we are now doing
by hand, and with the possib
The patch looks generally ok. However I'll need a few more days to review it
carefully and throughly. (you can merge it in the meantime if you want).
I'm just slighty concern with the amount of parsing we are now doing by
hand, and with the possible (local) security bugs we might be introducing..
Hi Dmitry, Brian, all,
Here's a scanner patch that I mentioned awhile ago, with a possible way to
work around the re2c EOF handling issues.
The primary change is to do a "manual scan" like I talked about in areas
that match large amounts and can contain NULL bytes (strings/comments, which
ar
17 matches
Mail list logo