Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74282 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 35444 invoked from network); 17 May 2014 16:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 May 2014 16:03:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.128.173 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.128.173 mail-ve0-f173.google.com Received: from [209.85.128.173] ([209.85.128.173:53127] helo=mail-ve0-f173.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B7/D0-28602-65887735 for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 12:03:34 -0400 Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id pa12so4526184veb.4 for ; Sat, 17 May 2014 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:from:mime-version:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Yxr9Rg6pRS+bb6+pOTVP3M/2Ny+jC3bgHXOdl34qitU=; b=jRxoGeH09goGvmYvtepVxO0Ar8j1w94n9Fyzc+GdFrPuszuVMEvJDsQQkadpi6kad1 IpaOerbCJbPIBbv35PW35or9ma+iU1LeGDI+XUXCy6k3WuIfknMxxT4QkF7hKa1aPYnM 32GKgH70CAAEB+uiZ0+LMZ/6ynKKTPJYEPw8QKB4BJC0hjsxk0oz7Bl61Ay2DuzXPwjG nD6PXAC8LgTGbYLF2ug2HjnVsiBTEtDJ1HnnKET6FNse3Z0EPvxMrUfuif4dAejbwY15 49ikhLrnVg7SAjGrkARMIZY2bvKwNDLMjXsM29YR/zwQdTFQ7eHxmknkO6ymVga5WNbe 3vyg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYIbU4pogtKRSljKpimX2cYcORSoeK4NJDlXURg3+KUGm+Qf04fKbotcXShiZjdtp+cfNczbIjedBQ+nP8Ao284/MQvg6rVvbIpM2JzkwFmYSqGIEDSYJVCNugBCtEsYfMn5cs X-Received: by 10.220.10.2 with SMTP id n2mr3415624vcn.26.1400342612023; Sat, 17 May 2014 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT) References: <3939936079205827190@unknownmsgid> <2422EE67-5206-4A27-9175-3C738A9128C9@ajf.me> <4081130594864738388@unknownmsgid> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 19:03:30 +0300 Message-ID: <-9104174845926653435@unknownmsgid> To: Andrea Faulds Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] A call for help (urgent) From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) >> >> That has nothing to do with the fact applying this patch is morally wron= g, and also may or may not be true. > > Morally wrong? I don=E2=80=99t see how morals come into this. Yes, it wou= ld undo some work that has been done by you, in favour of someone else=E2= =80=99s work. But I don=E2=80=99t see what=E2=80=99s =E2=80=98wrong=E2=80= =99 about that. Between the list of names I wrote, you have 80-90% of the engine code if not more. The yes group is - for the most part - comprised of non engine contributors, which are forcing their will on the ones who are. I'm not saying these guys aren't PHP contributors, btw. But much like I wouldn't dream of telling the docs team how they should do their job, I don't expect the opposite to happen either. > I never said phpng was evil. I said it was developed behind closed doors. You suggested it was somehow inferior because of that, not just stating a f= act. >> For the current PHP it yields an 8% memory increase. For phpng it'll be= a lot more since it's data structures are more compact and therefore it'll= be a lot more, relatively speaking. > > Relatively, yes. In absolute terms, however, what is the gap between vani= lla and phpng + 64bit patch? We don't have any numbers about phpng plus the patch because it doesn't yet exist. My guess is that it'll be in the 20-30% range to add this patch to phpng. Comparing to vanilla doesn't make sense at all - we didn't work phpng to waste the gains on this patch - but to improve performance. Zeev