Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79311 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 65079 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2014 18:14:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Nov 2014 18:14:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=anatol.php@belski.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=anatol.php@belski.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain belski.net from 85.214.73.107 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: anatol.php@belski.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.73.107 klapt.com Received: from [85.214.73.107] ([85.214.73.107:42941] helo=h1123647.serverkompetenz.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A3/60-62697-C0D0A745 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 13:14:37 -0500 Received: by h1123647.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix, from userid 33) id CEE236D2001; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:14:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from 217.254.141.103 (SquirrelMail authenticated user anatol@belski.net) by webmail.klapt.com with HTTP; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:14:33 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5478FFB8.1090000@gmail.com> References: <790a8d7299a7cda01ee76d8293b7d5af.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com> <5478FFB8.1090000@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:14:33 +0100 To: "Stanislav Malyshev" Cc: "Anatol Belski" , internals@lists.php.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.5.2 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Native TLS From: anatol.php@belski.net ("Anatol Belski") Hi Stas, On Sat, November 29, 2014 00:05, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > >> this is a long spoken topic which is now embodied in >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/native-tls . A preliminary implementation is >> there as well, thus we can discuss it. > > This sounds great! \o/ > I understand there's no practical performance impact? If so, code > simplification looks like a real win. > yep, the tests show it's at least as fast as the mainstream. The patch from the first RFC was replacing the array access with offset logic. Unfortunately I had to revert it as it was playing not good with the current master, so I just separated it from the approach. I see the "index vs offset" as something one can build upon the current RFC. Regards Anatol