Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121112 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 56576 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2023 09:32:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2023 09:32:00 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C361804C6 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:32:00 -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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-vs1-f44.google.com (mail-vs1-f44.google.com [209.85.217.44]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-f44.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-450b2b0bfe6so97566137.1 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:31:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1695288719; x=1695893519; darn=lists.php.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4tzf/hML4dYDTXgl7/mx3Hdg6ns+dwmmy3UVBhV8x2s=; b=k3ZR1HS/3gkyWwlJGYezgpELr7+KU7LSj1cfsmRjub2xYsy1ja+JFT3AnR/Qnjo4VL z1ZTq4gDZYxPBoXxfKfy5SAXgPnzdH0a2B9hwAq8Tucf0mk7vkBdZG5Y9ljMo8Dy+Edy IPbqtvCDHifzlrh3lwsGqFsJZSw0v40Le4tsholJd+yuLLQEMLRCq3A2PxxqMCtfQwFb toLDvX2XJyUTDrPMDs9nCLcluiBYw2XQYnMGMHEdZC6+jDAN7gXo75nlbtQLzmeEeNMw 71zsYSuZb6jr1OsBb7//FfBw8kwEw8NCTN5+v1rCSCT5+OcpfaW2vEHYFm2mLQKp47qX 1ZBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695288719; x=1695893519; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=4tzf/hML4dYDTXgl7/mx3Hdg6ns+dwmmy3UVBhV8x2s=; b=vKP1oUPrdbe01d5NOHuQRcMsdBuiYzDxIqMqi8pUd3C0pHgjkGDsQlYzesByTM7L1K F+E4a0PAGUBlixPh6nt72M2my5YZr1xOVQ026GX/IVVkUPgo7DrYkHC5v42IlHgfDlw4 DSJQlYkdwLqW2hOehWlVofWE7w+2vphbn+q83K2ONErJ5e3slO9ntwtLRvlgl30K8Za5 BDVvHNnp0ErePTiuqbxaLiyv5Wy2QKBvuUMsROUqgqnArNA4MjXy61xNul8uYy4S/atx kGuQaxIZfK1ldMXOtIJmfFPpYmg9trmI5uLS0g+PXbVuHlKlxuAAdy+FdX3aSugZltvX kQjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyyZivAHSUBnn0XmqouSrbHsy1qCMnJzCYpn4/93hgzRPhCUBni yVrd6htGkQiZ2kHTnmjTgbX8Bb++qGXltQhe4Ds= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGKCKEoH16m2gMv3izieSeKIMk18J7Be427GdrvQHlhhcaIdCZJcoaP6YgW2q4U+kt4wfeaTE0hSPJ7X/mHODk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3416:b0:452:8b0d:e22b with SMTP id p22-20020a056102341600b004528b0de22bmr3494789vsi.0.1695288718766; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:31:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 06:31:22 -0300 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= Cc: Dmitry Stogov , PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dfb5e30605db2920" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] A new JIT implementation based on IR Framework From: deleugyn@gmail.com (Deleu) --000000000000dfb5e30605db2920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:13=E2=80=AFAM Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote: > Hi > > On 9/21/23 10:26, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > 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, 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) the > codebase is cleaned up and users that want to test PHP 8.4 (or whatever > that version may be in the end) will be forced to also test the new JIT > which is probably a good thing. > If I understand correctly, the only way to fallback to the JIT 1.0 implementation is by compiling PHP with a new introduced flag, so the JIT 2.0 needs to be opt-out. The RFC doesn't mention the configurations for new JIT (init settings) which makes me assume that they're exactly the same? If these assumptions are right, I think the matter of keeping or removing JIT 1.0 implementation is mostly a matter of what makes Dmitry more comfortable. Removing it straight-away might result in adding more pressure in getting bug fixes on the new one, while keeping it might make it possible for whoever is relying heavily on JIT to still compile new PHP releases with JIT 1.0 to give more time to iron out the final details on JIT 2.0. Of course this is a very basic analysis on my part which mixes my experience in replacing PHP running-systems with new rewrites and it's much more comfortable to me to have a fallback mechanism in place which may or may not be entirely relevant here. --=20 Marco Deleu --000000000000dfb5e30605db2920--