Hi!
> I may commit it into master and pecl, but it means that pecl branch is
> going to be ahead of PHP-5.5.
In general, I think there's no harm in trying out new stuff on PECL -
and marking those as alpha/beta initially - pecl has a mechanism to
choose if you want only stable or also bleeding ed
Hi!
> I don't think this is a safe optimization. In the following case it would
> output 'b' and not 'a' which is the correct result:
>
> a.php:
> define('FOO', 'a');
> include('b.php');
> ?>
>
> b.php:
> define('FOO', 'b');
> echo FOO;
> ?>
>
> It is certainly not likely for a constant to be
Good point.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Graham Kelly-Cohn wrote:
> I don't think this is a safe optimization. In the following case it would
> output 'b' and not 'a' which is the correct result:
>
> a.php:
> define('FOO', 'a');
> include('b.php');
> ?>
>
> b.php:
> define
I don't think this is a safe optimization. In the following case it would
output 'b' and not 'a' which is the correct result:
a.php:
b.php:
It is certainly not likely for a constant to be defined twice but PHP
currently just issues a notice and continues with the first constant value.
On Thu
Speaking as a userspace developer and site admin, I'd be fine with
trading a more expensive compilation for a runtime improvement. Even a
100% increase in compilation time would pay for itself over only a dozen
or so requests (assuming the runtime improvements are non-trivial, too).
Naturally
Hey;
I think it's a great idea, if all op_arrays in one script share the same
literals table, let's say it's main scope 's literals table.
then we can make all class entry, function entry share the same constant
literal..
image that, same class(function) only need to lookup once in one
s
For now, the optimizations we do are quite chip.
They may increase the compilation time on first request by 2, but on
following requests we will get it back.
Once we come to really expensive optimizations we will do it "offline" (in
context of a separate process).
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Wed, Apr 10,
Yes. And it's the reason I'm asking for agreement.
I may commit it into master and pecl, but it means that pecl branch is
going to be ahead of PHP-5.5.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi Dmitry,
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
2013/4/10 Zeev Suraski
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godj...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 4:08 PM
> > To: PHP Internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] OPcache optimizer improvement in PHP-5.5?
> >
>
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 15:57 +0400, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> The attached patch demonstrates it and adds per script constants
> substitution explained in the following script
>
Will this case work properly:
a.php:
b.php:
c.php:
and then request #1 to a.php and request #2 to b.php?
johannes
2013/4/10 Florin Patan
> >On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Arvids Godjuks
> wrote:
> > 2013/4/10 Dmitry Stogov
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Recently, I've found that OPcache optimizer misses a lot of abilities,
> >> because it handles only one op_array at once. So it definitely can't
> >> perform any
hi Dmitry,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently, I've found that OPcache optimizer misses a lot of abilities,
> because it handles only one op_array at once. So it definitely can't perform
> any inter-function optimizations (e.g. inlining).
>
> Actually, it was
> If applying optimizations in multiple passes would be a problem for speed,
> especially on the first request, then maybe a way to solve this would be
> to have
> a configurable variable like: opcache.passes which is between 1 and 10
> (lets say)
> and then have the engine do something like
> this
> -Original Message-
> From: Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godj...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 4:08 PM
> To: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] OPcache optimizer improvement in PHP-5.5?
>
> 2013/4/10 Dmitry Stogov
>
> > Hi,
> >
&
>On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Arvids Godjuks
>wrote:
> 2013/4/10 Dmitry Stogov
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently, I've found that OPcache optimizer misses a lot of abilities,
>> because it handles only one op_array at once. So it definitely can't
>> perform any inter-function optimizations (e.g. inlin
2013/4/10 Dmitry Stogov
> Hi,
>
> Recently, I've found that OPcache optimizer misses a lot of abilities,
> because it handles only one op_array at once. So it definitely can't
> perform any inter-function optimizations (e.g. inlining).
>
> Actually, it was not very difficult to switch to "script
Hi,
Recently, I've found that OPcache optimizer misses a lot of abilities,
because it handles only one op_array at once. So it definitely can't
perform any inter-function optimizations (e.g. inlining).
Actually, it was not very difficult to switch to "script at once" approach.
The attached patch
17 matches
Mail list logo
