Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74220
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLs+XzJSWDr25mncB0Tngr9pJ4z3KLhp1k7_pXk4c_517g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEZPtU6xpcGHTTrohn3QTR==2e1Umv4KGsb91JXU0qN-sP2Yjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLtcL_ouZgy8DcggX4+VUk3fg3j5+BWQcRG9tAy-Xi_WVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5VF2CMDysjucKu+XnMSiHd0JEr0daiJBDwyRrK-gSquA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLs+XzJSWDr25mncB0Tngr9pJ4z3KLhp1k7_pXk4c_517g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:44:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU52vv=Z8Y32KWy_Q1O=S7d4gc2oCSBtYvk6g2uSfUjFJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [rfc] 64bit usage, actual memory usage using real life apps
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

> +1MB per process is not insignificant taking in account the amount of CPU
> cache.

Alone the ICU update or some other libs will be more than that,  just
to put things in relation. I still can't agree with the statement that
this little increment is not acceptable, even less given the very
early stage of phpng. It is also not correct, nor fair, to block this
long due patch because of that, knowing that phpng allows more
improvements.

>> Now, for what I understand, no matter what we do or provide, you guys
>> are going to refuse this patch, with absolutely no valid reason but an
>> hypothetical change that may be ready in a timely manner for php-next.
>> Given that it is in an acceptable state, both from a stability and API
>> point of view. This is definitively a bad thing and I am not sure that
>> will end well for php as a project or language. Or did I miss
>> something that could tell me that you may actually be more
>> cooperative?
>
>
> I tried to be cooperative, and discussed this patch with you proposing
> taking it into phpng part by part and proving that each part doesn't make
> significant harm. You liked agreement for all at once even if it's not
> implemented for phpng. Once I saw the memory overhead, I made my decision -
> that it's not acceptable.
>
> Anyway, I'll try to be more cooperative :)

Thanks, I meant you in the plural form btw :)

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org