Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:33653 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 95588 invoked by uid 1010); 4 Dec 2007 17:12:04 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 95547 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2007 17:12:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Dec 2007 17:12:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=felho@avalon.aut.bme.hu; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=felho@avalon.aut.bme.hu; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain avalon.aut.bme.hu from 84.2.42.5 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: felho@avalon.aut.bme.hu X-Host-Fingerprint: 84.2.42.5 mail00d.mail.t-online.hu Received: from [84.2.42.5] ([84.2.42.5:57693] helo=mail00d.mail.t-online.hu) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 48/00-27173-91A85574 for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:10:51 -0500 Received: from gergely-hodicskas-computer.local (unknown [89.132.156.182]) by mail00d.mail.t-online.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FBEBE137 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:10:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47558A0F.4030501@avalon.aut.bme.hu> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:10:39 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4731278C.8020301@chiaraquartet.net> <4731F977.4080502@zend.com> <4753B087.4020206@chiaraquartet.net> <003601c83582$a1b16fc0$e5144f40$@mcnaught@synergy8.com> <4754807B.80408@zend.com> <7F691D88-687F-4066-AC8E-9CB8E3DB80DB@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ignored patches From: felho@avalon.aut.bme.hu (Gergely Hodicska) > vserver. And the xdebug profiling result shows me in fact that this > additional time seems to be spend in the autoload facility and its > require_once calls. OFF: require_once in autoload is not logical to me. Best Regards, Felhő