Re: [APC-DEV] 3.0.x vs. 3.1.x

On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:35 AM, Gopal V wrote:
> Looks like the regression is in the memleak patches by shire. I didn't
> pay enough attention when he committed it, but those leaks were  
> ignored
> or rather left in-limbo because of past bugs. Other parts of
>
> http://news.php.net/php.pecl.cvs/10041
>
> b0rks up this older "fix" :)
>
> http://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/pecl/apc/apc_main.c?r1=3.98&r2=3.99
>
> The order in which extensions are unloaded and the way they use
> memory makes it really hard for APC to zero-copy data without
> leaks - memcpy'ing opcodes into local memory is a huge perf-hit,
> but the workaround with huge refcounts introduces such leaks.
>
> Maybe I should make it clearer in code.
>

Ah, thanks Gopal, I didn't realize callbacks where happening in the  
rshutdown's of other modules.   If there where a hook into the  
function cleanup I assume it would be an easy fix to clean this up  
(although it's technically cosmetic only, but does help people spot  
*actual* new "leaks").  It seems like the classes could also have the  
same pitfalls if it happened to be used by the callback function, is  
this a possible issue or am missing something there?

-shire