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

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. -Original Message- From: Nuno Lopes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday,

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

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

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

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