At 05:18 PM 11/8/2002 -0500, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
What if you wanted to have a constant STRLEN? It would break.On Sat, 09 Nov 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote: > I am very much against anything like this. > Improving strlen()'s performance only will have a negligible performance > impact on a real world script. > With the same kind of argument you could probably find 10-20 functions > which would be faster if you'd make opcodes for them. That's not really > what you'd want to do. > Also, the patch isn't quite the same functionality wise because strlen in > your patch is a reserved word. This isn't my main problem though as it > could be solved.Just out of curiousity, what are the problems with making it a reserved word and how could it be solved?
It could be solved by doing strcmp()'s during the compilation of a function and checking if the function name is strlen().
> If you want to really help improve performance of real-world scripts then
> try and find a way to improve performance of *all* function calls, i.e., of
> the extension API; and not by moving functions from the extension API into
> the core.
No big deal. This just came up at the PHP conference in Germany during a
chat with George and Thies.
I could have guessed Thies had a hand in it :) Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
