Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65405 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 92169 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2013 14:58:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Jan 2013 14:58:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:46509] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 60/91-10721-F83E7015 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:58:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (xdebug.org [127.0.0.1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4202010C5C0; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:58:19 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:58:19 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Zeev Suraski cc: Clint Priest , Anthony Ferrara , Tyler Sommer , PHP Developers Mailing List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <5d21b42656d49b4a71d9f808541bd745@mail.gmail.com> <252ADB1A-2660-4A45-B859-B92DA2C8B8D8@gmail.com> <5107CEEB.9080003@zerocue.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Integrating Zend Optimizer+ into the PHP distribution From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Zeev Suraski wrote: > From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpriest@zerocue.com]: > > > On 1/29/2013 5:23 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > > > > Additionally, I don't like the precedent that this sets for future > > > releases. That it's ok to break the timebox for some feature. In > > > this case I think we can justify it, but future cases may use this > > > to justify waiting when it's not completely justified in itself. > > > I'm not sure how we can rectify this concern, but I figured it was > > > worth mentioning. > > > > I would agree with this sentiment, time boxing from my own personal > > experience just completely breaks down if you let anything get in > > the way of it, if you let that box slip for any reason, other > > reasons become easily justifyable. If 5.5 is due for release, we > > should not delay it for 2 months to get an opcode cache into core. > > > > Additionally: > > > > 1) I believe Optimizer+ is the opcode cache that's been discussed > > but it's not thread safe? > > It's presently not thread safe. Just to be sure we're all on the same > page, this is only meaningful if you're running PHP on Windows and not > using FastCGI; It's completely meaningless in any other scenario (i.e. > for the vast majority of users); That said, adding thread safety support > for Optimizer+ is a fairly easy task. We've never done it because none of > our commercial products use thread-safe PHP. I'll update the RFC to > clarify the scope of this limitation. I wouldn't bother making it work with ZTS. If you want performance, you shouldn't be using it, and the other case I heard was "pthreads" in which case it plays no role,as all of the script is in memory anyway for the duration of the process. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine