Hello Andi, one thing it helps in is that having it as non static makes some compilers use an additional jump. Actually for shared dlls those functions might end up in the jump table that is going to be initialized during loading process. So infact there might be some advantage in doing it this way. Also constifying is one of our overall goals since long. And here we finally have someone willing to do the job, why not letting him do it?
best regards marcus Saturday, August 26, 2006, 1:19:01 PM, you wrote: > I don't think it helps. It won't inline these functions in most cases > anyway, and having or not having a symbol shouldn't make a difference. > I'd prefer to stick to our standards and keep all extensions the same. Who > knows if/when we'll want to play around with the symbols also. It could come > in handly with dlls. > Andi >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ilia Alshanetsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Ilia Alshanetsky >> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 9:59 AM >> To: Andi Gutmans >> Cc: 'Nuno Lopes'; php-cvs@lists.php.net >> Subject: Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src(PHP_5_2) /ext/bz2 bz2.c >> php_bz2.h /ext/ctype ctype.c php_ctype.h /ext/json json.c >> php_json.h /ext/pspell php_pspell.h pspell.c /ext/tidy >> php_tidy.h tidy.c /ext/zlib php_zlib.h zlib.c zlib_fopen_wrapper.c >> >> Andi, >> >> I think the idea here was to minimize memory utilization and >> allow the compiler to optimize the code better, something >> that having functions defined as statics appears to help with. >> >> >> On 26-Aug-06, at 11:30 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote: >> >> > Why is this important? We never defined these as static. As long as >> > you move them to the .c file (for whatever reason you have >> that might >> > be >> > justified) >> > you really don't have to define them as static IMO. >> >> Ilia Alshanetsky >> >> >> >> Best regards, Marcus -- PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
