| 9 | | Account what? A function that always exists unless put into disabled_functions (which was not why it had been checked for prior PHP 5.x)? And if so part of disabled functions? The code that was dependent on it does not make use of it or am I missing something? Can you explain for what it needs to stay in there for 3.2? I must admit I'm a bit puzzeled ... ;) |
| | 9 | Account what? A function that always exists unless put into disabled_functions (which was not why it had been checked for prior PHP 5.x)? And if so part of disabled functions? The code that was dependent on it does not make use of it or am I missing something? Can you explain for what it needs to stay in there for 3.2? I must admit I'm a bit puzzled ... ;) |
| | 10 | |
| | 11 | |
| | 12 | ---- |
| | 13 | '''Update:''' According to the documentation when the function was introduced, it has been put in to determine ''"if PHP was compiled with --enable-memory-limit."'' As since PHP 5.2.1 it obviously does not fullfil this check any longer. |
| | 14 | |
| | 15 | Excerpt from the original ticket: |
| | 16 | |
| | 17 | [comment:44:ticket:3141 ruckus]: |
| | 18 | > Why does the code in [6681] check for the memory_get_usage() function to exist? That function is not used. |
| | 19 | |
| | 20 | [comment:47:ticket:3141 ryan]: |
| | 21 | > It's used to determine if PHP was compiled with --enable-memory-limit. |
| | 22 | |
| | 23 | As the check for the function is not useful and the function itself not used any longer the check of it's existence is superfluous. I see no reason to keep it. But probably I'm missing something here, I'm interested about your thoughts Nacin. |
