Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127665
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 19:30:16 +0200
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Add num_available_processors
In-Reply-To: <20250527171352.552DD1A00BD@lists.php.net>
References: <bc1ec15125844c78a6aa23dce6148af9@danielkesselberg.de>
 <8b76a3d4-4583-4849-a75f-00f645191247@gmail.com>
 <db784868-187d-42ff-9575-64b5ca70f50b@app.fastmail.com>
 <57f7ed3e-6bef-434d-83db-fd729ff43fc9@gmail.com>
 <20250527163747.ADA6D1A00BD@lists.php.net>
 <0FC66A63-1284-41AF-AA27-27F657EB57AF@php.net>
 <20250527171352.552DD1A00BD@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <adc31192d44d2d0ea12624fcb80f4ae4@danielkesselberg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: mail@danielkesselberg.de (Daniel Kesselberg)

Hi,

Thanks for all your feedback on the RFC.

I've updated the RFC to incorporate most of your feedback: 
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/num_available_processors

1) The limitation, that the CPU affinity mask is ignored
2) The naming discussion
3) Function availability on unsupported platforms
4) Return type

How do we continue? ;) I see there are various ideas how to approach it, 
is that something you would vote (let's do a or b) on, or how does that 
work?

Best
Daniel

On 2025-05-27 19:13, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> On 5/27/25 12:01, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> On 27 May 2025 17:37:47 BST, Ben Ramsey <ramsey@php.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Are you suggesting that the function itself not be available or that 
>>> it throws when you attempt to call it on a system that doesn't 
>>> support it?
>>> 
>>> I don't like the idea of the function not being available if the 
>>> system doesn't support the functionality. Users would have to call 
>>> function_exists() before using the function, in those cases.
>> 
>> 
>> This has been the accepted practise for years, if not decades.
>> 
>> If functionality isn't available, the function shouldn't exist. We do 
>> the same for posix (such as posix_getrlimit) and DNS related 
>> functions.
>> 
>> This also allows for polyfills.
>> 
>> cheers
>> Derick
> 
> 
> I see. Carry on, then. :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben