Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86472
Return-Path: <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 70312 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2015 07:50:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 3 Jun 2015 07:50:31 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mike.php.net@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mike.php.net@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.174 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mike.php.net@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.174 mail-wi0-f174.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.212.174] ([209.85.212.174:34304] helo=mail-wi0-f174.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 3F/B2-45124-5C1BE655 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 03:50:30 -0400
Received: by wibut5 with SMTP id ut5so93046382wib.1
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
        bh=6EnfmxTLW7Q0AY4PQcq5buoTylEf3WBe+oVolm8sMGc=;
        b=Wr2PTjuRx65v6GdE5rBkYbEuCYLVpB+uRwIcCtl0Z3oNnu4CSt8ez/o6UdZP8QdLky
         P9TOAx4exVYoabtVmpiQyirVy+7x70BsOQr0giHQkr38RsDBSodlsmNHj0nyZtNIkG7w
         87E76d4Ji2I4OS6Jg8a9zMaetju5K05Qr7h40GdfMnHyt/XBhDkILFN0+0ZLmFyh0uD8
         BIeKuMrP4FR5Z3rx2FvBKNR0rYdTMUWkqT59vr9MhM7Frbat1+FGHqxBIjT6EIPPexE8
         RLhR7aSw7zYRckuImzxcVY94OCUv8F/AWK3RqNKXm7vdMo2LHQZIuWISNClvPY6npQzo
         jIyA==
X-Received: by 10.194.60.50 with SMTP id e18mr21095061wjr.109.1433317826649;
        Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lepisma.bemi (89-104-28-113.customer.bnet.at. [89.104.28.113])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nb9sm365727wic.10.2015.06.03.00.50.25
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
In-Reply-To: <CAEYWF=4Gn=6OcPWc3w2k6G7DWrqaUfS4QdohjhiSG+2vH8euyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:50:27 +0200
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <CB6903CB-DAC6-45D6-A71F-79BA14DE7B99@php.net>
References: <CAEYWF=4Gn=6OcPWc3w2k6G7DWrqaUfS4QdohjhiSG+2vH8euyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: bishop@php.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Method call overhead
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)


> On 03 06 2015, at 05:30, Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote:

> My question though is on relative times.  Method call overhead is
> consistently 50% to 150% over a direct call.  Is my experiment =
invalid, or
> is this overhead expected?  Is the overhead in the allocation,
> deallocation, GC?

I=E2=80=99suggest you use a tool like valgrind=E2=80=99s callgrind (and =
visualize with e.g. kcachegrind).

Regards,
Mike
=20=