Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95428 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 84871 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2016 15:36:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Aug 2016 15:36:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bishop.bettini@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bishop.bettini@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.53 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bishop.bettini@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.53 mail-oi0-f53.google.com Received: from [209.85.218.53] ([209.85.218.53:35029] helo=mail-oi0-f53.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 90/B8-10212-01FBDB75 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:36:49 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 4so27701015oih.2 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:36:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nasLDNQMXhrJOhMwBO46J1ZrbFhdRz/7twV6BAi/81s=; b=iKdQcGZWNk7Ddpcoyy9iw1gAVOKYKmOEgAhCBLWDsMRVr2kcHMRh6MMaPldI7mri1r vDYyGzrNmcZQ02kyn0Bq/+pX5FlOhM/sNVslh3TW2N/aMdKtWr3R1iUHZVyjBXTcXCVw wCj5/zLvOkmzu9HbHKm66oWfzJfXI1sZo+P3GEiqdqbkmBS8JAz+fviuEjPLfRRGE883 y39D1G+xMY+tWyYiF0r4keFjfoSKR95XHTHMb6TGFEOKc/0T90ic9LlJC8XDdMUECdFQ iTbvCzWY8sTDBxFKw6nwbLlV0QiBU2fQh3Il97xIMr+ZErnrrm77ngv6cr7G5zTdl5uE sT/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nasLDNQMXhrJOhMwBO46J1ZrbFhdRz/7twV6BAi/81s=; b=eYVg5xVR+KHiHHJ0do0EbxVlGWnNEbcD4byM0sYhQVNmQ1//q3dmiNhzq/cR7KSI5t 2aSnz9En7PbLWk2t6WPsjbJ/pRyuXWQT8NVmJGuPi8xPdLMh9zWr7fDfhic12QHqGTjO XCghwp48qf0NckmejlNB+v7dWuNrdcZgsWtDgqeKiKZI3XBy7skJJtphB/jyyvNa45uY Ze5Mi4OtgASl/nHiS0/11IOyL9FB52mQu2xaID1QJW3/+pWAYc73wlnBDyqbzClFuScD yTHFyUC/Yntv10N6E2ds4Nr50dKl3sJlkWL9pHWyVmEtaXsmfQamrCUN9LGvXHkJYvMM rT3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwPe7oe5Og0V4hhblD/w2fks8uH/n537IvvEjIFLwcbm2T0Y6tHdydT4CMR2yWwRTmeOJx6IKJSuCy/J5A== X-Received: by 10.157.51.124 with SMTP id u57mr2850641otd.25.1472053006417; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: bishop@php.net Sender: bishop.bettini@gmail.com Received: by 10.157.11.214 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:36:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:36:15 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yNuZmDG_Hb7aDnbfw6yafDvVtzo Message-ID: To: David Walker Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141552489d548053ad30c5c Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container read-adccess From: bishop@php.net (Bishop Bettini) --001a1141552489d548053ad30c5c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Walker wrote: > I'd like to extend the vote through Sunday evening in the event anyone had > reservations based on potential performance impact. The RFC is currently > sitting 15-0 in favor. > I'd recommend extending the original end date by a week, since internals tends to vote in weekly intervals (an informal minimal reasonable response time, I suppose). > (added to RFC) > Execution Time (DualCore 3ghz; 2g ram) > * Current Master : ~0.09s (~489k operations) > * Current Master w/RFC Displaying Warnings: ~33.25s > * Current Master w/RFC Hiding Warnings: ~0.82s (~4.091m operations) > > We can see there is a significant increase in operations on huge loads. > However, I wouldn't suspect 1m of these errors per request almost ever. > So, yes there is; but I'd call it useful information overhead. > I've not looked at the code. How much, if at all, does the RFC change the happy path operation, on a test like this? $a = [ 'foo' ]; for ($i = 0; $i < 1000000; $i++) { $a[0]; } Notwithstanding, I feel the ops increase 10x is worth it: this is a subtle code problem. --001a1141552489d548053ad30c5c--