Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39398 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46259 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2008 07:26:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jul 2008 07:26:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dmitry@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dmitry@zend.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dmitry@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.25.124.163 il-gw1.zend.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [212.25.124.163] ([212.25.124.163:12126] helo=il-gw1.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 45/A7-31471-E947D884 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:26:23 -0400 Received: from [10.1.10.10] ([10.1.10.10]) by il-gw1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:26:57 +0300 Message-ID: <488D748E.2080309@zend.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:26:06 +0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanislav Malyshev CC: Matt Wilmas , internals@lists.php.net, Andi Gutmans References: <00ea01c8a160$2edd8160$0201a8c0@pc1> <016c01c8eccd$e28cfac0$0201a8c0@pc1> <488835D0.1040005@zend.com> <00e501c8ed77$3498cf20$0201a8c0@pc1> <48889901.8000008@zend.com> <022c01c8ee74$5b539340$0201a8c0@pc1> <488C5464.1030706@zend.com> <488D5C35.9030105@zend.com> <488D71E6.80504@zend.com> <488D7416.3070102@zend.com> In-Reply-To: <488D7416.3070102@zend.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2008 07:26:59.0039 (UTC) FILETIME=[523116F0:01C8F083] Subject: Re: New optimization idea; was: No runtime fetching of built-in global constants From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov) It is the thing I like to do. Dmitry. Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> For now it solves the check code (read/seek) but not the open syscall. > > Hm... this looks wrong. Why one needs to open if scanner is perfectly > capable of opening file by itself? >