Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65845 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 97257 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2013 18:24:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Feb 2013 18:24:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.133 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.133 smtp133.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.133] ([67.192.241.133:36596] helo=smtp133.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 63/A7-58622-BDB2D115 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:24:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp23.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0565D2F849F; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:24:25 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp23.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 57EA72F8455; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:24:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <511D2BD6.2090903@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:24:22 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Zakhlestin CC: Zeev Suraski , Christopher Jones , PHP internals References: <511BFC81.8020400@oracle.com> <7de2703f77537a47b457c4479a19ac3a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Zend Optimizer+ Source Code now available From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Well, if it does block-level optimizations, that is already enough to > make it useful for CLI-scripts, as even though caching is not relevant > for long-running processes, optimizations should make things faster. For most scripts, optimizations are not really worth it unless you run the same code over and over, so for CLI it would be noticeable only if you run long-running CPU-intensive server. > Are optimizations documented? Not yet AFAIK. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227