Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26177 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37829 invoked by uid 1010); 23 Oct 2006 10:41:36 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37814 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2006 10:41:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Oct 2006 10:41:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rquadling@googlemail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=good Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rquadling@googlemail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 64.233.166.177 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: good X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rquadling@googlemail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.233.166.177 py-out-1112.google.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [64.233.166.177] ([64.233.166.177:32150] helo=py-out-1112.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AC/FE-41582-C5C9C354 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:41:35 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id t32so145266pyc for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:41:29 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=googlemail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RyBv4TBznqYDxcfVyO8/7gdCw3e8ONMRCV5OXdKVAobNFaQLumMefo6ZetjmM9+y96gPIISk3MalwsesTDlBsv3Z9NLLqJMUgv4SSFgfUFlqZWkuGmKEZf4Zbe5y2y1odlhYdE+/7euyMzXcW6qkX6/6n3geHG4hJZDG40dXkT8= Received: by 10.35.18.4 with SMTP id v4mr6305782pyi; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.97.14 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <10845a340610230335l4f76bf6al68158dcdd2874c1f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:35:03 +0100 Reply-To: RQuadling@GoogleMail.com To: "Derick Rethans" Cc: "Lukas Kahwe Smith" , Pierre , "Ilia Alshanetsky" , "php internals LIST" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why is mktime(0,0,0,0,0,0) E_STRICT? From: rquadling@googlemail.com ("Richard Quadling") 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. -- ----- Richard Quadling Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731 "Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"