Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84245
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
References: <CABBJUpd8f8ApcPqJp6d5ih0Bywkk4LUnFdQOD=ovL1U6nhid0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpf63s3_Yp2o2_YdWYZJKVPqVTR+94qXmZUU7R5=8NiJrQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU437-SMTP88BCE6F234A85E87BA3F4BE2150@phx.gbl>	<CABBJUpcD5MTHYc8UVi-=MpXs3U-pAb0KcZVj0nXJiu_SdOqQBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU436-SMTP2039471E714BB553BE06CC8E2150@phx.gbl>	<CA+9eiLvb-_5TzW8-_Sguxa0JmqtuAT21A7jkydV4-6z-w1-EaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMUwpuQBn0GY98BSXc8o3d2U6K+nDts7ZA8ZP4X_-r81due5Mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<246f14640403edad07e8d595fd357286@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMUwpuSU+5zhTkfEq7QnJhNjMK1KM45v2vtDff41KebX=Z_FoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<70f58ecc2ed3df7f3ebf8f45dcc14a42@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nH9cK-886O+q2bhdcUsF7mjAzbgfJW1jR5fYNx1Ek2PjQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nH9cK-886O+q2bhdcUsF7mjAzbgfJW1jR5fYNx1Ek2PjQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQD4C3IYZ8ixidYeCJVBHrwVMMzwcQKM7Vi6APWEoLUCBfYYjQG30wCdAthkrE0CmeEoaAFEPJzrAXfDQG4BfHw4VQJvvRYAniCpC5A=
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:04:01 +0200
Message-ID: <6ceda4ae1f89bac37f2558f4c4b1b3b9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: About optimization for compiler
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 5:50 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Julien Pauli; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: About optimization for compiler
>
> Zeev,
>
> >> I agree with that as well, just Anthony gave a different opinion
> >> which seems right as well.
> >
> > I think that if we ever have optimization passes that are
> > prohibitively expensive to run interactively (most probably around
> > JIT) we'll definitely need new strategies for them.  But as long as
> > we're talking about relatively optimization passes that take
> > milliseconds to run and not minutes, I think this approach holds true.
>
> How is a JIT "prohibitively expensive to run interactively"? Or was that
> not
> your implication?

It wasn't - the implication is that out of all the optimizations the exist
in the world, it's likely that if we ever have ones that are prohibitively
expensive to run interactive - they'd most probably be around JIT or other
types of native compilation strategies.  What you said is the reverse - that
JIT optimizations are inherently prohibitively expensive to run
interactively, which we obviously all agree on isn't the case and not what I
meant.  X -> Y doesn't mean Y -> X...

Thanks,

Zeev