Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112120 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 9447 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2020 12:50:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 26 Oct 2020 12:50:27 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797901804C6 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:08:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-pf1-f181.google.com (mail-pf1-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-f181.google.com with SMTP id j18so6096709pfa.0 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:08:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Rk8Zt6rReJzj83+/XsNItp7lVAbkBCJtLC3GNQ9BWjM=; b=YIA0xccP+DCjTDyQpTczY0KIP2JY94AJeQX7GCKnXJBxIm9VCcZzik5NYWWVb09pEu MHhApPldgohizT3PqsEFHcBGthdXQmDA93SgKpO6Lo8hfAnWlv3Gh9a1g3L/iH9FpSwk MMQvCrcgbUlIH1Gjluhe67GvqKoyUq2pMXFK24BwGGIt+h4w2LB0bShjjT7TBtRoVdVM jxXzgEQ5f6KgF/Vst+mX9jPpADaC25jasjBBCE8G37uEmnd280AU8rLhLZCpi0BaN+1K wRlg6N5EflD2D918ndq3yqqOyJsY2ncdtu3M5ZQybPS7bm73xVLd+tGdi6dYP6OX/QtR AbRQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Rk8Zt6rReJzj83+/XsNItp7lVAbkBCJtLC3GNQ9BWjM=; b=Rpmz+w0LViUZ6ke2iIelUN8ME4wdloWXl7EzA47weZ8kQB8e44XIKzs1yaMsl/C5c1 3SObfIjbwIHfE3XrbdJE3fVCa0ehMAr/CuERs0vOe3ZhJYE9s7ejeC+NdktCXn9ocuLs PzhWdgVM3kRzRfOLwcLF5rxm5XQlFaa5t4BT5RBZzLbRuywutZ/OzCbHCd96oF1g2nDs 4abc8BMjB6oKKM6tk+bN6gF7ttZU6Z571qAnnpEGR/e/nwDP4uJgryl2Mlk+evLqOLJ0 UR4BKG7Uav8s+3TQpQLnaEaqtSbRaEcl1vUG/ry+7lnC+caoIysKwQbi37kPquXExddv riLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533R+RueydUjyFF2VKS/+THX+m+OqGdUqm1yyjlCMymLljFrrNOH a/kh3kefOTKTQ9vWZ7dh0Bt9pJy/vGptbINhf55cXGijwl+E6w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBSv/gWjkdyUvuRaAjkNbyH0qA3WOkXz5BPyWl8QjkuejrXpd+mWkBJ8zfetdoeX45dFwRVACRXCb+9Eue0qY= X-Received: by 2002:a63:1f19:: with SMTP id f25mr16366532pgf.232.1603714128598; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:08:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <33788573-5cf1-0409-5cfc-d090b96b4db8@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <33788573-5cf1-0409-5cfc-d090b96b4db8@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:08:36 +0100 Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why is non-crypto hashes excluded from/ext/hash/bench.php ? From: divinity76@gmail.com (Hans Henrik Bergan) @Christoph M. Becker haha that's probably it, i guess that long ago PHP didn't have any non-crypto hash algos, one of the results read "256MB Windows 2000" when was the last time someone rolled a 256MB ram windows 2000? (am rolling some 128MB ram VPS's, but rolling Windows with such amounts of ram would be insane today) nevermind then, thanks for pointing it out (also seems Nikita Popov just removed the old results from master) .. another thing, imo /ext/hash/bench.php should hash a constant size, not some size that change every time the code changes, in my opinion $data = file_get_contents(__FILE__); should be replaced with something like $data = str_repeat("\x00", 2 * 1024); - the old size of bench.php (before Nikita's edit) was 2240 bytes, and 2*1024 is pretty close, 2048 bytes - if you for some reason want random bytes instead of 0, i guess random_bytes() can be used instead, but i don't think it should make any difference in the benchmarked parts