Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29048
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain realplain.com from 209.142.136.132 cause and error)
Message-ID: <00d801c787e5$9119dbc0$0201a8c0@pc1>
To: <internals@lists.php.net>, "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>
References: <00d201c77d07$dc0819f0$0201a8c0@pc1> <004201c787b6$588705f0$0201a8c0@pc1> <1667202369.20070426091902@marcus-boerger.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:30:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Major optimization for heredocs/interpolated strings
From: php_lists@realplain.com ("Matt Wilmas")

Hi Marcus,

Yeah, I did a lot of benchmarking different things ;-) and mentioned some
statistics in my original message -- such as 10-15% *overall* improvement
using ApacheBench on a few scripts.  The difference for specific strings
depends on what the string looks like (length, etc.), but is always faster
for both scan/compile time and runtime.  The difference is huge with, for
example, a longer heredoc without variables, like the one in Sara's blog
entry.

And as I also mentioned, removing the ^ beginning-of-line operator from the
old heredoc end token rule, it makes YY_RULE_SETUP empty in the generated C
file, which had been setting yy_at_bol for *every* token matched, just for
the one rule that used it.  Eliminating that overhead for each token made a
measurable difference in *overall scanner performance* -- I'm sure there's
less difference with non-ZTS builds since YY_RULE_SETUP was referencing
globals.

BTW, regarding HEAD, for you, Andrei, or anyone, I think I noticed a bug,
unrelated to my changes: CG(literal_type) isn't set for backticks in the
parser, so it winds up being whatever was last set.  I would've changed it,
but didn't know if it's supposed to always be IS_STRING or dependent on
UG(unicode).


Thanks,
Matt


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Boerger"
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007

> Hello Matt,
>
>   the patch looks interesting. I think we should commit it to HEAD. And
> if it works good we can add it to 5.3 once we created it. Did you do any
> measurements?
>
> best regards
> marcus
>
> Thursday, April 26, 2007, 5:52:43 AM, you wrote:
>
> > Hi again,
>
> > Hmm, not a single reply about this patch...?  Did anyone try it out? :-)
> > Think it can be used after 5.2.2?
>
>
> > Matt