Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70479 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34677 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2013 08:25:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Dec 2013 08:25:13 -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 108.166.43.107 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.107 smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.107] ([108.166.43.107:44021] helo=smtp107.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C2/00-34518-8659D925 for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 03:25:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 79C24980CE; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:25:09 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 1AA9B98424; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:25:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <529D9564.4070909@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 00:25:08 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Terry Ellison , PHP Internals References: <528CE64A.1020303@gmail.com> <528EA006.2090400@gmail.com> <52993190.4010905@gmail.com> <52995F97.7000901@sugarcrm.com> <5299B124.3030809@gmail.com> <529A5947.5060701@sugarcrm.com> <529A831C.80401@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <529A831C.80401@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Comments on non-unique naming convention for closures From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > +1 on avoiding time-related system calls -- even though these are pretty > optimized on current Linux kernels -- however this is why we suggested a > content based hash. Any alternatives that I can think of require a > materially larger larger patch involving more source changes. I understand why you proposed content-based hash. What I was suggesting is not replacing it but amending it to produce different hash even in case same code would be encountered in different places - e.g. by hashing not only the text but also filename & line number (or counter). I'm not sure if it is strictly necessary for OPcache (could be that it is not) but in general having multiple functions with the same name floating around is not a very good idea, IMO, if we can avoid it... After all, that's how we got this problem from the start :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227