Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121111
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPVMwwt8dgJGQKVsHt5=YRbx7VwqnXWOua99vsQPY2LWx9xxFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c874b79e-903e-c882-6adf-049de6d92b34@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <c874b79e-903e-c882-6adf-049de6d92b34@bastelstu.be>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 12:25:42 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPVMwwtEO254wbpuXVEunacmBJ5bN+bKUrQpX9LV2zyr1sDGwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001fdb620605db14a6"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] A new JIT implementation based on IR Framework
From: dmitrystogov@gmail.com (Dmitry Stogov)

--0000000000001fdb620605db14a6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Tim.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 12:13=E2=80=AFPM Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.=
be> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 9/21/23 10:26, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> > After all the Poll Request discussions (see
> > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/12079), code-reviews and internal
> > discussions with core developers we decided to move this through the RF=
C
> > process.
> >
> > Thanks to all participants.
> >
> > The RFC is open for discussion: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/jit-ir
>
> Thank you. I find it important to follow the formal process, even if
> many folks are not able to make a meaningful decision due to the lack of
> knowledge about the topic. This includes me.
>
> That said, I'd like to add my two cents to the "Open Issues" section:
>
> My understanding is that even if the new JIT might not (yet) be better
> than the old one, it is not worse and it is more maintainable. The
> reactions from more knowledgeable folks were pretty positive overall.
>
> So if the new JIT passes the existing test suite without issues,


Passing test suites doesn't mean we couldn't have other problems.


> I don't
> see a reason why the old JIT should not be replaced right away. By
> immediately removing the old JIT (ideally in a separate commit)
>

I'm going to agree to remove the old JIT and I like the idea of removing it
in a separate commit.

Thanks. Dmitry.


>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus
>

--0000000000001fdb620605db14a6--