Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93444
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 65.55.169.136 as permitted sender)
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net>
CC: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, PHP internals
	<internals@lists.php.net>, Phil Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Typed Properties
Thread-Index: AQHRsl29xlQFrvOFJkSnB4pG0wOhsp/GNLQWgAAMHICAAAy0gIAABg8AgAAgycA=
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 12:38:52 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0201MB17844A664FD49C65A7B696FFBF4E0@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAL=_i_mcJoFnPgeU5FQCJN=SDYnNK7Jz8zoVMv9EMuWaGRYSMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR0201MB17843672AD6CE2C492793B98BF4E0@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<eaf60d62-cf57-b517-b8ab-ff6acd1b2a93@gmail.com>
	<CAMUwpuRqcqdZzWYsL8fuB=DUayaj9HQS04eqy3Vpoeq80nbPKA@mail.gmail.com>,<CAL=_i_n_8aEn5gomvZGPrAC8VXaVVKYLWj8tHG0Rpaq=OHvBtg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_n_8aEn5gomvZGPrAC8VXaVVKYLWj8tHG0Rpaq=OHvBtg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_BY2PR0201MB17844A664FD49C65A7B696FFBF4E0BY2PR0201MB1784_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 May 2016 12:38:52.8582
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 32210298-c08b-4829-8097-6b12c025a892
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0201MB1781
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Typed Properties
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)

--_000_BY2PR0201MB17844A664FD49C65A7B696FFBF4E0BY2PR0201MB1784_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Joe,


Unfortunately your solution with IS_TYPE_VERIFIED is not acceptable, becaus=
e you update the source zval.


If the assigned value is a literal you change read-only memory and crash (w=
ith opcache.ptotect_memory=3D1)


<?php
class C {
    public int $a;
}
$x =3D new C;
$x->a =3D 5;
?>


Thanks. Dmitry.



________________________________
From: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 1:16:22 PM
To: Julien Pauli
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev; Dmitry Stogov; PHP internals; Phil Sturgeon
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Typed Properties

Morning internals,

    I have improved the performance of the patch a little, here's the resul=
ts of a bad run:

    krakjoe@fiji:/usr/src/php-src$ sapi/cli/php -n prop.php
    empty_loop         0.064
    write_prop1()      0.088    0.025
    write_prop2()      0.079    0.016
    write_prop3()      0.082    0.018
    ------------------------
    Total              0.314

    There is going to be overhead, not the kind we can't minimize, or justi=
fy though.

    Dmitry has said he'll review, and I'm hoping at least Laruence, Nikita,=
 and Bob will do the same ...

    We have many weeks to improve the implementation, I'm not going to merg=
e anything that's obviously bad :)

Cheers
Joe


On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net<mailto:jpaul=
i@php.net>> wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
<smalyshev@gmail.com<mailto:smalyshev@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> The performance effect of this implementation is terrible.
>>
>> Assignment to typed property is 2.3 times slower.
>> Assignment to untyped property in a class with typed properties is 1.8 t=
imes slower.
>>
>> See the benchmark
>> https://gist.github.com/dstogov/1b678712adeee51665cdd829195bb800
>
> This is not good. I wonder why these tests weren't made before the vote
> and results wheren't added in the RFC. Should we make it a standard
> practice to do so? Having 2x slowdown on each property access sounds
> like a bad idea.

The question is :
* should the vote be an idea-based vote, or integrate the code into the vot=
e ?

My vote did not integrate the code, but the feature.

The idea is that if the RFC passes, then the feature is agreed, and we
still have some time to find a better implementation.
If we could not find one, then the feature should be abandoned or
post-poned until a new patch. If the new patch changes the
implementation, then the RFC should be reopened.

My thoughts.

Julien.Pauli


--_000_BY2PR0201MB17844A664FD49C65A7B696FFBF4E0BY2PR0201MB1784_--