Fix concurrent iteration and deletion issues in SplObjectStorage

[ndossche]

Reported by @cnitlrt

[Girgias]

Seems reasonable. Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

[ndossche]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

[Girgias]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

Right, but that would be master level change anyway.

[ndossche]

Reported by @cnitlrt

[Girgias]

Seems reasonable. Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

[ndossche]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

[Girgias]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

Right, but that would be master level change anyway.

[ndossche]

Reported by @cnitlrt

[Girgias]

Seems reasonable. Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

[ndossche]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

[Girgias]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

Right, but that would be master level change anyway.

[ndossche]

Reported by @cnitlrt

[Girgias]

Seems reasonable. Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

[ndossche]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

[Girgias]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

Right, but that would be master level change anyway.

[ndossche]

Reported by @cnitlrt

[Girgias]

Seems reasonable. Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

[ndossche]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

[Girgias]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

Right, but that would be master level change anyway.

[ndossche]

Reported by @cnitlrt

[Girgias]

Seems reasonable. Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

[ndossche]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

[Girgias]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

Right, but that would be master level change anyway.

[ndossche]

Reported by @cnitlrt

[Girgias]

Seems reasonable. Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

[ndossche]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

[Girgias]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

Right, but that would be master level change anyway.

[ndossche]

Reported by @cnitlrt

[Girgias]

Seems reasonable. Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

[ndossche]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

[Girgias]

Might have some performance impact but better correct and slow than fast and broken.

It's possible to avoid making it slower by changing how the attach function works: if the caller is expected to make a copy then the overhead is reduced a lot because addAll and removeExcept won't make excessive copies.

Right, but that would be master level change anyway.