Hi Stas,
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 10:54 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Stas, Johannes? We have to fix this crash, in one way or another. The
> > current patch is good imo.
>
> I'm ok with this in 5.4 but I'd really like to fix the var_dump issue if
> possible.
I've reworked the patch bef
Hi!
> Stas, Johannes? We have to fix this crash, in one way or another. The
> current patch is good imo.
I'm ok with this in 5.4 but I'd really like to fix the var_dump issue if
possible.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
P
Hi!
> As I mentioned previously, that small piece is easy fixable, though it
> possibly makes that place not portable between 32 and 64 bit. The main
> intention is to fix the unserialization crash, which IMHO interleaves this
> small deviation.
What you mean by not portable? Different code, diff
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 14:07 +0200, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
>
>
>> I propose we fix the serialization/unserialization crash in a way that
>> does not affect var_dump.
>
> That was the summary of my message a while back, too. Aside from that
On Mon, June 10, 2013 14:04, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Anatol Belski wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Etienne,
>>
>>
>> On Mon, June 10, 2013 13:24, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Gustavo Lopes
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:06:11 +0
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 14:07 +0200, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> I propose we fix the serialization/unserialization crash in a way that
> does not affect var_dump.
That was the summary of my message a while back, too. Aside from that I
trust the assessment of extension maintainers.
I want to take thi
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2013 1:24 PM, "Etienne Kneuss" wrote:
> >
>
> > So if I understand correctly var_dump now indicates a different type than
> > what accessing the property returns?
> >
> > Even if the change itself does not constitute a big BC bre
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Anatol Belski wrote:
> Hi Etienne,
>
> On Mon, June 10, 2013 13:24, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Gustavo Lopes
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:06:11 +0200, Derick Rethans
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> That's the one where
Hi Etienne,
On Mon, June 10, 2013 13:24, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Gustavo Lopes
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:06:11 +0200, Derick Rethans
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's the one where conversion int <> string for serialization was
>>
developed. It came into
On Jun 10, 2013 1:24 PM, "Etienne Kneuss" wrote:
>
> So if I understand correctly var_dump now indicates a different type than
> what accessing the property returns?
>
> Even if the change itself does not constitute a big BC break, this
> behavior is confusing and seems like a big no-no to me.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:06:11 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> That's the one where conversion int <> string for serialization was
>>> developed. It came into 5.5 with this patches (the originally proposed
>>> patch is still attached to that
hi,
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:06:11 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>>> That's the one where conversion int <> string for serialization was
>>> developed. It came into 5.5 with this patches (the originally proposed
>>> patch is still attached to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:06:11 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote:
That's the one where conversion int <> string for serialization was
developed. It came into 5.5 with this patches (the originally proposed
patch is still attached to that ticket)
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=commitdiff;h=0ee71557
Hi Derick,
On Fri, June 7, 2013 14:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Anatol Belski wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, June 7, 2013 12:45, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Jun 6, 2013 6:03 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
> On Thu, 6
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Anatol Belski wrote:
> On Fri, June 7, 2013 12:45, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 6, 2013 6:03 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >>>
> The fix for #53437 is around for some
Hi Derick,
On Fri, June 7, 2013 12:45, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 6, 2013 6:03 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>>
>>>
The fix for #53437 is around for some time now. It full fills the
requir
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2013 6:03 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >
> > > The fix for #53437 is around for some time now. It full fills the
> > > requirements described by Derick when we discussed the possible
> > > fixes.
On Jun 6, 2013 6:03 PM, "Derick Rethans" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> > The fix for #53437 is around for some time now. It full fills the
> > requirements described by Derick when we discussed the possible fixes.
> >
> > Unless there are strong objections in the next coupl
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Pierre Joye wrote:
> The fix for #53437 is around for some time now. It full fills the
> requirements described by Derick when we discussed the possible fixes.
>
> Unless there are strong objections in the next couple of days, I will
> ask Anatol to apply it on Monday. This
19 matches
Mail list logo
