Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68729
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nFYOfmWGbTS0kAFjwBUUmHbchN1cZw-31FaMyY4UavFrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFRfuu0dGnu0FV1ehkqwQR6=dUFSHMP=6CJsAVWghCADg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nFYOfmWGbTS0kAFjwBUUmHbchN1cZw-31FaMyY4UavFrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:13:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPwsocE-3yYEiWofkORT5+r3+xAr+=z0bz=G9fv6imDtE9r8Dg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c349065f0f8004e52c7f5c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [DRAFT] [RFC] Function autoloading
From: leight@gmail.com (Leigh)

--001a11c349065f0f8004e52c7f5c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Aug 30, 2013 1:31 PM, "Anthony Ferrara" <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
> For constants and function calls, the benchmark shows that the difference
> is well within the margin of error for the test (considering variances of
> 5% to 10% were common in my running of the tests).
>
> So hopefully this will dispel any worry about performance regressions in
> currently defined cases.
>
> The times where performance will take a hit, is with undefined functions
> and constants. Today, an undefined function will fatal error, so this
> performance hit would be 0, as it would enable something that's not
> possible today.

I would assume there is actually potential for performance gain for
functions being autoloaded in larger codebases when the *_once calls are
removed that would normally load the common functions files.

--001a11c349065f0f8004e52c7f5c--