Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=49348&edit=1
ID: 49348
Updated by: s...@php.net
Reported by: BelStudent at yandex dot ru
Summary: Uninitialized ++$foo->bar; does not cause a notice
(but ++$bar; does!)
Status: Assigned
Type: Bug
Package: Scripting Engine problem
Operating System: *
PHP Version: 5.*, 6
Assigned To: stas
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
The problem here is that get_property_ptr_ptr does not produce notices. It
doesn't
because it does not know the fetch type - in some cases it's BP_VAR_W, then it
shouldn't produce notice, in some it's BP_VAR_RW and then it should. However
get_property_ptr_ptr doesn't have a parameter to pass this info.
Looks like such parameter needs to be added...
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2009-09-01 08:41:52] sjo...@php.net
I was talking about this:
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/trunk/Zend/zend_execute.c?revision=286362&view=markup#l251
With ++$foo, type is BP_VAR_RW, which makes sense and gives a notice. With
++$this->foo, it is BP_VAR_W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2009-08-31 22:12:10] j...@php.net
# svn log -r100312 zend_object_handlers.c
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r100312 | stas | 2002-10-20 22:22:04 +0300 (Sun, 20 Oct 2002) | 2 lines
looks like this message should go
---
Stas, care to explain? Uncommenting that will bring back the notice.
And Sjoerd, what did you mean with that comment..?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2009-08-27 21:06:36] sjo...@php.net
In _get_zval_cv_lookup(), type is BP_VAR_W, while it should be BP_VAR_RW for
the example code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2009-08-25 08:18:09] j...@php.net
Reopened, Gwynne's arguments are rock solid. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2009-08-25 07:13:46] gwy...@php.net
Actually, this is a valid problem; the problem described by bug #21008 is a
different issue. There seems to be some confusion as to whether it should be
fixed or not, but it's neither a duplicate nor bogus.
Specifically, bug #21008 describes an issue with setting a variable to a value,
where this report describes an issue with updating a variable. These are two
distinct operations, and are handled differently.
More to the point, the following code throws a notice:
<?php
++$n;
?>
That the code described by this bug doesn't is an inconsistency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=49348
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=49348&edit=1
