Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70477
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8BCA5A38-788B-4E6A-A6AC-1A8DCBA3D8D9@zend.com>
References: <CA+9eiLuSBF9NVqnGV8Oe1Dn-tBQ_86h2PGsFuJhr0_Wv9jYoZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.wx532ugqidpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net>
	<CA+9eiLtpKjJtF9K7xBnftmzjEd92C6rLu-k+0RW1wfc60_oLtg@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.wx6g9ftzidpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net>
	<CABBJUpdvzkO-p6mKtGnrrxdAvXgRp8GHzEGazjibCSicOgS9Eg@mail.gmail.com>
	<529D1197.5000305@nebm.ist.utl.pt>
	<8BCA5A38-788B-4E6A-A6AC-1A8DCBA3D8D9@zend.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:33:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CADNQb0XtN2zeLEb-bGm5L6rfH+7KomOVgmqaxwp4fQcceOMcgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com>
Cc: Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt>, Laruence <laruence@php.net>, 
	Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	Gadi Goldbarg <gadi@zend.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] strtr() performance degradation
From: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com (Hannes Magnusson)

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt> wrote:
>>> =E2=89=88
>>
>> The progress consists of writing of scripts to test the point where to s=
witch algorithms and trying some improvements on the old one without as exp=
ensive preprocessing steps.
>>
>> Now, this was in the summer... I'll have some time in the holidays to pi=
ck up this and some other PHP-related backlog; that said, if there's some i=
mpatience (which would be perfectly understandable...), I wouldn't mind if =
someone reverted to the previous state in the meantime.
>
> Sounds like this may take some time to figure out. So if there is absolut=
ely no difference in semantics between the two I would suggest we revert un=
til you are able to dig into this.
>


This change was included in 5.4.12 and 5.4.22 has been released.
Now you want to revert and maybe release 5.4.23 and then apply again in 5.4=
.24?

That doesn't seem worth it. What done is done. Had it been reverted
right away then it would have make sense, but not 10 releases later?

-Hannes