Skip to content

zend: find_frameless_function_offset() walking past the handler array… #23516

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
devnexen wants to merge 2 commits into from
+5 −4
Closed

zend: find_frameless_function_offset() walking past the handler array… #23516

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
47d8218
zend: find_frameless_function_offset() walking past the handler array…
devnexen Aug 30, 2026
0401de3
feedback
devnexen Oct 18, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 5 additions & 4 deletions Zend/zend_compile.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4927,13 +4927,15 @@ static uint32_t find_frameless_function_offset(uint32_t arity, const void *handl
{
void **handlers = zend_flf_handlers;
void **current = handlers;
while (current) {

@ndossche ndossche Oct 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So why not change this to *current ? Seems nicer than rewriting the code (which would avoid an induction loop variable)

while (*current) {
if (*current == handler) {
return current - handlers;
}
current++;
}

/* Unreachable in practice: zend_register_functions() records the handler

@ndossche ndossche Oct 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This comment is good

* of every frameless_function_infos entry at registration time. */
return (uint32_t)-1;
}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -4963,10 +4965,9 @@ static const zend_frameless_function_info *find_frameless_function_info(const ze
|| frameless_function_info->num_args == args->children)) {
uint32_t num_args = frameless_function_info->num_args;
uint32_t offset = find_frameless_function_offset(num_args, frameless_function_info->handler);
if (offset == (uint32_t)-1) {

@ndossche ndossche Oct 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this cleanup or necessary?

@devnexen devnexen Oct 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

kind of is yes, frameless_function_info increment sits at the bottom of the while part, previously continue skipped it, before vs now: -1 as return could not happen, with *current it now can.

continue;
if (offset != (uint32_t)-1) {
return frameless_function_info;
}
return frameless_function_info;
}
frameless_function_info++;
}
Expand Down
Loading