Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95431
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain mudsite.com designates 209.85.217.181 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADVQu1QXag1h_hnOcFYejMbsDrV+4ZQCwKNJmb4EedBB6S33Ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <b26cbcf7-191d-10d2-5ea0-c9982c44592e@pascal-martin.fr> <CADVQu1TAfk78AeMnG4jy+gZXQ+hgFuRGO4hVWC085-8b5i3LJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYWF=4r8yo8+Pj36zQLw9OegemCEp1yd5X9d8HR3Dwp8st44A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEYWF=4r8yo8+Pj36zQLw9OegemCEp1yd5X9d8HR3Dwp8st44A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:51:13 +0000
Message-ID: <CADVQu1QszknHwUpJ2udTunUyXJ-jp8Qs-B--mmW5Ap5yNvF8iA@mail.gmail.com>
To: bishop@php.net
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114284ced00eca053ad34033
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container read-adccess
From: dave+php@mudsite.com (David Walker)

--001a114284ced00eca053ad34033
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:36 AM Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Walker <dave+php@mudsite.com>
> 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).
>

Good to know the general convention here.  I'll extend a week until
Wednesday the 31st.


>
>
>> (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.
>

That is my thoughts too.  When testing this change against my product I
uncovered 10 cases of this warning being raised (which was actually
helpful), but only ever 2-3 per request.  So I'd imagine it's never going
to come to the 1m+ happenings per request ever.

And for your given test case, since $a[0] is defined (as 'foo') the change
in this RFC is not triggered, so there is no difference between any of the
testings.

--
Dave

--001a114284ced00eca053ad34033--