Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26176 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37664 invoked by uid 1010); 23 Oct 2006 10:41:30 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37649 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2006 10:41:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Oct 2006 10:41:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=good Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 66.249.92.169 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: good X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 66.249.92.169 ug-out-1314.google.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [66.249.92.169] ([66.249.92.169:43510] helo=ug-out-1314.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 4C/FE-41582-85C9C354 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:41:29 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 80so1130378ugb for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:41:26 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=gF2ofDMByfiuILDiBNzcS8UlVSFqGCWzkXKc3x4TdnCg+ziFxQauHPe/G6hKHewN1bQmRt1usOd8QBkrzLd8OVWkb5tFSorVgwdpnfqyUPDhGk19uDAo14niaGgBSQzA7VzaWRon/UnsIpyxEpHfQRzHBpixDz55zlgTHh17Vfs= Received: by 10.78.201.8 with SMTP id y8mr7163215huf; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.137.6 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:41:25 +0200 To: RQuadling@googlemail.com Cc: "Derick Rethans" , "Lukas Kahwe Smith" , "Ilia Alshanetsky" , "php internals LIST" In-Reply-To: <10845a340610230335l4f76bf6al68158dcdd2874c1f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <10845a340610221045x2439b02alee7829425c902468@mail.gmail.com> <1B060546-A982-497C-8241-680044CDED15@prohost.org> <453C7372.3070104@php.net> <453C7A0A.8050905@php.net> <10845a340610230335l4f76bf6al68158dcdd2874c1f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why is mktime(0,0,0,0,0,0) E_STRICT? From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre) Hello, On 10/23/06, Richard Quadling wrote: > On 23/10/06, Derick Rethans wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, I see no point in pushing this responsibility into the userland, > > > > > especially since its a BC break appearently. > > > > > > > > There is no BC break: > > > > > > I meant, there would be a BC break if this feature gets dropped, which is the > > > point of the message, right? > > > > Yeah, but there is no point in calling mktime() without arguments as you > > can use time() doing the same. It's just a friendly hint that you're > > wasting CPU cycles. It's an E_STRICT message for ****s sake. > > > > In a simple test, 100000 calls to time() took 0.055 seconds and > mktime() took 3.2 seconds. > > Nearly 60 times faster to use time(). > > Didn't realise that. If you read the other replies to your initial question (which was wrong :), you will realize another thing, this is easily fixable with minimum effort and impact: http://pecl.php.net/~pierre/remove_mktime_strict.txt No visible speed difference . --Pierre