This may be due to the way domxml is doing things, but the test script
in bug #10936 still creates a crash, and the backtrace points to
zend_print_zval_r_ex...see attachment 1.
Attachment 2 show that var_dump() gives more or less the same result.
#0 0x81bf5d6 in zend_print_zval_r_ex
It looks like domxml is responsible here. The hash table that's sent to it
contains a NULL value, which should be a valid zval *...
Zeev
At 13:04 26-08-01, Joey Smith wrote:
This may be due to the way domxml is doing things, but the test script
in bug #10936 still creates a crash, and the
OK, I'll track it down. Thanks.
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote the following to Joey Smith :
It looks like domxml is responsible here. The hash table that's sent to it
contains a NULL value, which should be a valid zval *...
Zeev
At 13:04 26-08-01, Joey Smith wrote:
This may
If NULL's a valid zval*, then both of thise routines need to be fixed to
handle null pointers. Here's some patches:
--- zend.c.orig Sun Aug 26 11:14:28 2001
+++ zend.c Sun Aug 26 11:20:22 2001
@@ -199,6 +199,10 @@
ZEND_API void zend_print_zval_r_ex(zend_write_func_t write_func, zval
What Zeev meant is that it should be a valid zval * but it isn't.
Andi
At 11:31 AM 8/26/2001 -0400, George Schlossnagle wrote:
If NULL's a valid zval*, then both of thise routines need to be fixed to
handle null pointers. Here's some patches:
--- zend.c.orig Sun Aug 26 11:14:28 2001
+++
p.s. casual inspection suggest that having NULL zval pointers in
HashTables may break alot of places.
On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 11:31 AM, George Schlossnagle wrote:
If NULL's a valid zval*, then both of thise routines need to be fixed
to handle null pointers. Here's some patches:
At 11:45 AM 8/26/2001 -0400, George Schlossnagle wrote:
Ahh... that makes much more sense. Should there be any protection though
from populating a hash with NULL values, or is this solely the
responsibility of the extension writer? While there is the
zend_has_add_empty_element(), it appears
Sounds fair to me.
On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 11:51 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 11:45 AM 8/26/2001 -0400, George Schlossnagle wrote:
Ahh... that makes much more sense. Should there be any protection
though from populating a hash with NULL values, or is this solely the
responsibility
But it is not :)
It was a double meaning sentence I guess, what I meant that what was
*supposed* to be a valid zval *, was in fact a NULL (which is not a valid
zval *)
At 18:31 26-08-01, George Schlossnagle wrote:
If NULL's a valid zval*, then both of thise routines need to be fixed to
